PRINCETON,  N.  J. 


_1L_ 


Shelf. 


BV  811.5  .C45  1896X 
Christian,  John  T.  185A- 

1925. 
Did  they  dip? 


I 


BOOKS  BY  DR.  CHRISTIAN. 


Did  They  Dip?  or,  An  Examination  into  the  Act 
of  Baptism  as  Practiced  by  the  English  and  Amer- 
ican Baptists  before  the  Year  1641.  Cloth,  75 
cents  ;  paper  35  cents. 

Rev.  T.  T.  Eaton,  D.  D.,  LL.  D.,  editor  IVesfern 
Recorder,  says  : 

Dr.  Christian  has  shown  a  remarkable  talent  for  gath- 
ering and  arraying  authorities.  For  more  than  twenty  years 
he  has  been  studying  the  history  of  immersion,  and  has 
spared  no  time  nor  expense  to  supply  himself  with  original 
documents.  I  do  not  suppose  there  is  a  Baptist  in  the  land 
who  has  anything  like  such  an  array  of  original  ziocuments 
on  this  subject  as  has  Dr.  Christian.  In  many  cases  he  has 
the  original  editions,  while  in  others  he  has  official  copies 
made  at  the  British  Museumi  and  elsewhere.  He  has  exam- 
ined more  than  forty  books  which  Dr.  Dexter  does  not 
mention  in  his  bibliography  of  the  subject,  and  which,  it  is 
reasonable  to  believe.  Dr.  Dexter  never  saw.  Dr.  Christian 
is  also  singularly  accurate  in  his  use  of  authorities.  I  have 
read  this  book  through  and  have  not  detected  a  single  inac- 
curacy. Many  of  the  quotations  I  have  personally  verified 
and  have  found  them  correct,  and  though  I  have  not  verified 
them  all,  yet  I  have  no  doubt  of  the  absolute  correctness  of 
every  one.  He  courts  investigation,  however,  and  he  will 
gladly  welcome  the  detection  of  any  mistake  in  the  book. 
(The  Introduction.) 


Immersion,  The  Act  of  Christian  Baptism.  12th 
edition.  Morocco  ^1.50;  cloth  $1.00;  paper  35 
cents. 

Prof.  Wm.  H.  Whitsitt,  D.  D.,  LL.  D.,  president 
Southern  Baptist  Theological  Seminary,  says  : 

I  have  read  over  with  much  satisfaction  the  volume  of 
Rev.  Dr.  Christian,  entitled  '  Immersion,  the  Act  of  Christ- 

2 


ian  Baptism.'  His  treatment  of  the  subject  is  industrious, 
sprightly,  pointed  and  entertaining.  I  believe  that  the  work 
will  be  of  real  service;  it  is  concise,  yet  clear  and  convinc- 
ing. Many  people  will  read  and  appreciate  it  who  would 
never  undertake  one  of  the  more  ponderous  treatises.  I 
trust  that  the  blessing  of  God  will  rest  upon  this  and  every 
effort  to  promote  a  knowledge  of  the  truth. 

Rev.  John  A.  Broadus,  late  president  of  the 
Southern  Baptist  Theological  Seminary,  says  : 

This  book  treats  every  department  of  the  subject  with 
practical  point  and  force;  with  good  sense  and  with  a  good 
spirit.  It  is  remarkably  rich  in  testimonies  of  scholars,  in- 
cluding the  concessions  of  very  many  learned  Pedobaptists, 
Romanists,  etc.  Every  minister  would  do  well  to  procure 
it,  and  many  other  devout  men  and  women,  both  for  per- 
sonal reading  and  for  use  with  those  who  maybe  convinced. 

Dr.  Maclaren,  the  great  preacher,  Manchester, 
England,  says  : 

This  volume  on  immersion  is  carefully  and  industri- 
ously prepared,  and  its  fullness  and  comprehensiveness 
leaves  nothing  to  be  desired.  I  hope  its  circulation  may 
be  large.  It  will  be  if  it  is  commensurate  with  its  com- 
pleteness-. 

Dr.  Joseph  Angus,  president  Regents  Park  Col- 
lege, London,  England,  says  : 

I  am  glad  to  have  a  copy  of  Dr.  Christian's  book  on 
Baptism.  Its  thoroughness  and  clearness,  and  force  and 
spirit,  are  all  admirable;  and  the  general  circulation  of  it 
among  the  English  speaking  people  could  not  fail  to  pro- 
mote the  interests  of  truth  and  love. 

Close  Communion;  or.  Baptism  as  a  Prerequisite 
to  the  Lord's  Supper.  5th  edition.  Morocco 
$1.50;  cloth  Si.oo;  paper  35  cents. 

Prof.  A.  T.  Robertson,  D.  D.,  Southern  Baptist 
Theological  Seminary,  says  : 

I  have  enjoyed  reading  it  and  it  grew  upon  me  to 
the  end.  It  shows  the  same  patient  investigation  and 
masterly  marshaling  of  irresistible  arguments  that  char- 
acterized the  author's  work  on  '  Immersion.*  The  two 
will  form  an  impregnable  bulwark  for  our  doctrines  on 
those  questions.  I  regard  it  as  equal  to  the  one  on 
*  Immersion.' 

3 


Prof.  W.  C.  Wilkinson,  D.  D.,  professor  in  Chi- 
cago University,  says  : 

'Close  Communion,'  by  J.  T.  Christian,  can  hardly  fail  to 
carry  conviction  of  the  truth  to  any  candid  reader.  It  is 
clearly  written,  kind  in  spirit,  and  is  well  adapted  to  the 
average, Christian  reader,  which  is  exactly  what  a  popular 
treatise  on  the  subject  should  aim  to  be. 

Americanism  or  Romanism,  Which?  8th  edition. 
Cloth  $i.oo;  paper  25  cents. 

Wesley a7i  Methodist,  Syracuse,  N.  Y.,  says  : 
There  is  a  general  expression  of  a  noble  patriotism  in 
this  book.  The  fearful  arraignment  of  Romanism  is  chiefly 
upon  evidence  of  the  accredited  authors  and  authorities 
of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church.  The  book  is  of  great 
value. 

Heathen  and  Infidel  Testimonies  to  Jesus  Christ. 

3d  thousand.     Paper  5  cents. 

Four  Theories  of  Church  Government.     5  cents. 

Address,        Baptist  Book  Concern, 

Louisville.  Ky. 


DID  THEY  DIP? 


..OR 


AN  EXAMINATION  INTO  THE  ACT  OF  BAPTISM 

AS  PRACTICED  BY  THE  ENGLISH  AND 

AMERICAN    BAPTISTS    BEFORE 

THE  YEAR  1641. 


BY 

John  T.  Christian,  M.  A.,  D.  D., 

Pastor  East  Baptist  Church, 
LOUISVILLE,  KY., 


And  Author  of  "Immersion,  the  Act  of  Baptism,"  "Close  Com- 
munion; or,  Baptism  as  a  Prerequisite  to  the  Lord's  Supper,"  "Ameri- 
canism or  Romanism,  Which?"  "Four  Theories  of  Church  Govern- 
ment," "  Heathen  and  Infidel  Testimonies  to  Jesus  Christ,"  etc. 


WITH  AN 


INTRODUCTION 


BY 


T.  T.  EATON,  D.  D.,  LL.  D 

SECOND  EDITION. 


BAPTIST    BOOK  CONCERN. 

LOUISVILLE,  KY. 


Entered  according  to  an  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1896,  by 

John  T.  Christian, 

In  the  Office  of  the  Librarian,  Washington,  D.  C. 


INTRODUCTION 


pvR.  CHRISTIAN  has  shown  a  remarkable 
^^  talent  for  gathering  and  arraying  authori- 
ties. For  more  than  twenty  years  he  has  been 
studying  the  history  of  immersion  and  has  spared 
no  time  nor  expense  to  supply  himself  with  orig- 
inal documents.  I  do  not  suppose  there  is  a 
Baptist  in  the  land  who  has  anything  like  such  an 
array  of  original  documents  on  this  subject  as  has 
Dr.  Christian.  In  many  cases  he  has  the  original 
editions,  while  in  others  he  has  official  copies 
made  at  the  British  museum  and  elsewhere.  He 
has  examined  more  than  forty  books  which  Dr. 
Dexter  does  not  mention  in  his  bibliography  of 
the  subject,  and  which,  it  is  reasonable  to  believe, 
Dr.  Dexter  never  saw. 

Dr.  Christian  is  also  singularly  accurate  in  his 
use  of  authorities.  I  have  read  this  book  through 
and  have  not  detected  a  single  inaccuracy.  Many 
of  the  quotations  I  have  personally  verified  and 
have  found  them  correct,  and  though  I  have  not 
verified  them  all,  yet  I  have  no  doubt  of  the  abso- 
lute correctness  of  every  one.  He  courts  investi- 
gation, however,  and  he  will  gladly  welcome  the 
detection  of  any  mistake  in  the  book.  The  most 
unpleasant  thing  in  connection  with  replying  to 
Dr.  Whitsitt's  "  Question  in  Baptist  History"  is 
calling  attention  to  his  unauthorized  use  of  docu- 
ments, owing  largely  to  his  misplaced  confidence 

7 


8  DID   THEY   DIP  ? 

in  Dr.  Dexter.  And  yet  whoever  replies  to  any- 
book  must  needs  call  attention  to  its  misuse  of 
authorities  where  such  misuse  exists.  When,  for 
example,  such  great  stress  is  laid  on  the  sup- 
posed testimony  of  the  "Jessey  Church  Rec- 
ords," it  is  needful  in  replying  to  point  out  that 
what  is  quoted  as  **  Jessey  Church  Records"  really 
belongs  to  an  "  ancient  manuscript  said  to  have 
been  written  by  Mr.  William  Kiffin."  In  all  this 
Dr.  Christian  has  not  gone  beyond  the  limits  of 
honorable  controversy.  Indeed  he  is  not  so  severe 
on  Dr.  Whitsitt  as  the  latter  is  on  Dr.  Clifford. 
When  a  man  enters  the  lists  of  controversy  he 
must  expect  his  statements  to  be  challenged. 

It  should  be  constantly  borne  in  mind  that  not 
till  the  year  1641  were  the  Baptists  in  England 
free  to  speak  and  write  their  views.  It  was  on 
August  I,  1641,  that  the  Court  of  High  Commis- 
sion and  the  Court  of  Star  Chamber  went  out  of 
existence.  Then,  and  not  till  then,  could  Bap- 
tists come  from  their  hiding  places  and  preach 
openly.  Of  course  their  doctrines  and  practices 
were  new  to  a  great  many  people.  To  find  in- 
stances, therefore,  after  1641,  where  Baptists  were 
called  "  new "  does  not  at  all  prove  that  they 
began  to  exist  in  1641.  Indeed  the  fact  that  they 
were  then  heard  from  so  vigorously,  and  spread  so 
rapidly,  itself  proves  they  were  in  existence, 
though  in  hiding,  before.  Just  so  soon  as  it  was 
safe  for  them  to  show  themselves  they  are  seen 
here,  there  and  everywhere,  to  the  great  annoy- 
ance of  the  state  clergy,  who  call  them  **  new, 
upstart  sectaries,"  etc.     The  fact  that  in  1644  im- 


INTRODUCTION,  9 

mersion  had  such  a  strong  hold  on  the  divines 
composing  the  Westminster  Assembly  that  after 
a  long  and  bitter  debate  they  voted  it  down  by 
only  one  majority  is  decisive  proof  that  immer- 
sion did  not  begin  in  England  in  164 1. 

Then  Dr.  Joseph  Angus,  our  great  British 
scholar,  has  called  attention  to  a  number  of  Bap- 
tist Churches  in  England  which  trace  their  history 
to  times  long  before  1641,  e.  g.,  Braintree,  Ey- 
thorne,  Sutton,  Warrington,  Bridgewater,  Oxford 
and  Sadmore.  All  the  Baptists  of  England,  so  far 
as  I  know,  believe  that  their  fathers  practiced  im- 
mersion before  1641. 

Dr.  Whitsitt's  contention  is  that  from  1509  to 
1641  the  Anabaptists  of  England  practiced  affu- 
sion, and  in  that  year  they  began  to  practice 
immersion.  And  yet  he  has  not  cited  a  single  in- 
stance where  any  Anabaptists  in  England  prac- 
ticed affusion,  nor  a  single  case  where  any  Ana- 
baptist Church  adopted  immersion.  The  "Jessey 
Church"  was  not  an  Anabaptist  Church,  and  an 
anonymous  manuscript  which  has  been  lost,  and 
whose  date  nobody  knows,  is  the  only  evidence 
that  this  church  began  to  practice  immersion. 
Richard  Blount  is  said  to  have  gone  over  to 
Holland  to  get  baptism  in  the  true  succession, 
and  to  have  returned  and  baptized  Blacklock,  yet 
neither  Blount  nor  Blacklock  show  themselves 
afterwards.  When  in  1644  the  Baptists  of  London 
put  forth  their  Confession  of  Faith,  the  names  of 
Blount  and  Blacklock  are  significantly  absent 
from  the  list  of  signatures. 

While  before    1641   in  England  Baptists   were 


10  DID    THEY    DIP? 

obliged  to  hide  and  to  speak  with  bated  breath, 
yet  we  are  not  left  in  the  dark  concerning  them. 
Occasionally  we  hear  directly  from  them,  as  when 
Leonard  Busher  speaks,  in  1614,  and  Helwiss' 
Church  declares,  in  1610  or  1611,  that  baptism  is 
a  symbol  *' of  death  and  of  resurrection  "  {inortifi- 
cationis  et  vitce  renovationis)  ;■  but  it  is  chiefly  from 
what  their  enemies  say  of  them  that  we  get  our 
information.  Dr.  Christian  gives  a  good  deal  of 
this,  and  if  any  of  it  at  all  be  valid,  Dr.  Whitsitt's 
thesis  is  overthrown.  For  example,  Sam.  Hieron 
(Works,  p.  307,  London,   1614,)  says  of  baptism: 

' '  The  going  down  into  the  water  signifieth  mortifi- 
catio  or  fellowship  with  Christ's  death,  the  staying  un- 
der the  water  the  buriall  of  sinne,  the  coming  out  the 
rising  from  sin  to  newnesse  of  life." 

In  Commonplaces  of  Christian  Religion,  by  Wolf- 
gang Musculus,  written  in  Latin,  translated  by 
John  Man,  of  Merton  College,  Oxford,  and  pub- 
Hshed  in  London,  in  1578,  I  find  on  page  672 : 

"The  word  baptisme  cometh  of  the  Greek,  and  it 
is  as  much  to  say  in  English,  as  dipping  or  drowning 
in.  But  forasmuch  as  it  is  not  meante  of  every  man- 
ner of  dipping,  but  such  a  manner,  whereas  there  is 
one  thing  done  outwardly  and  another  inwardly,"  &c. 

Again,  on  page  6'jZ  of  the  same  book,  the  au- 
thor, speaking  of  the  baptism  of  the  disciples  in 
Ephesus,  says : 

''  For  to  what  purpose  was  it  to  dippe  them  twice  in 
one  baptisme  ?  Did  not  some  of  the  fathers,  and  Ana- 
baptists of  our  dayes,  take  the  foundation  of  their  bap- 
tizing upon  this  ?" 


INTRODUCTION.  11 

I  take  these  quotations  directly  from  the  original 
documents  themselves  and  not  from  copies.  Could 
testimony  be  more  decisive  ?  But  these  are  only 
samples  of  many,  all  of  which  must  be  set  aside 
entirely  in  order  for  Dr.  Whitsitt's  thesis  to  stand. 

Let  it  be  remembered  with  emphasis,  that  not 
an  atom  of  evidence,  or  any  pretense  thereof,  has 
been  offered  to  show  that  any  Anabaptist  church 
in  England  practiced  sprinkling  or  pouring  before 
1641,  or  that  any  such  church  ever  changed  their 
practice  in  regard  to  baptism.  The  whole  case  of 
Dr.  Whitsitt  now  rests  on  the  negative  testimony 
of  a  document  (the  so-called  Kiffin  MS.)  written 
nobody  knows  when  or  where,  or  by  whom,  and 
first  mentioned  by  Crosby  in  1738,  nearly  a  hun- 
dred years  after  1641.  Moreover,  the  oldest  ex- 
tant copy  of  that  manuscript  is  less  than  forty  years 
old,  and  there  is  no  certainty  that  the  much  quoted 
phrase,  "none  having  then  so  practiced  in  En- 
gland to  professed  behevers,"  was  in  the  document 
Crosby  had  before  him.  But  even  if  that  docu- 
ment and  that  passage  be  genuine,  the  argument 
would  be  only  that  the  writer  did  not  himself  know 
of  any  immersions  of  behevers  in  England  before 
1641  ;  but  it  would  not  prove  there  were  no  such 
immersions.  Elijah  was  certainly  a  better  witness 
as  to  Israel  than  was  this  unknown  writer  as  to  En- 
gland ;  and  Elijah  said  there  were  no  true  worship- 
pers in  Israel,  while  God  said  there  were  **  seven 
thousand."  Elijah  said  ''none  having  then  so 
practiced  in  Israel,"  but  God  said  seven  thousand 


12  DID    THEY    DIP? 

SO  practiced.  I  Kings,  xix.,  lo  and  i8.  The  fact 
is,  no  amount  of  negative  testimony  can  set  aside 
any  positive  testimony.  If  five  hundred  men 
should  walk  over  a  field  of  clover  and  solemnly 
declare  there  were  no  four-leaf  clovers  in  that  field, 
one  man's  finding  one  four-leaf  clover  there,  would 
overthrow  the  negative  testimony  of  the  whole  five 
hundred. 

One  great  good  to  come  from  this  discussion  is 
that  Baptists  will  be  better  informed  in  regard  to 
their  history  than  ever  before  ;  and  it  must  be  ad- 
mitted that  Dr.  Whitsitt  has  stirred  the  denomina- 
tion in  this  regard  as  nobody  else  has  ever  done, 
and  as  nobody  else  is  likely  ever  to  do.  Of  all 
people,  the  Baptists  are  the  last  to  be  afraid  of  the 
truth  on  any  subject. 

T.   T.   Eaton. 

Louisville,  Ky.,  Feb.  17th,  W 


CHAPTER  I. 

A    STATEMENT    OF    THE    CASE. 

Dr.  William  H.  Whitsitt  wrote  the  following 
article,  which  appeared  as  an  editorial  in  The 
Ifidepe?ide?it,  New  York,  September  2,  1880: 

The  Congregationalist  speaks  of  "  the  well-known  im- 
mersion of  Roger  Williams  by  the  unimmersed  Ezekiel 
Holliman."  We  are  somewhat  surprised  that  our  greatly 
learned  contemporary  should  be  betrayed  into  the  assertion 
that  Roger  Williams  was  immersed  by  Ezekiel  Holliman. 
To  be  sure  all  the  Baptists  of  America' so  assume,  but  the 
editor  of  The  Congregatiojialist  is  more  accurately 
acquainted  with  the  origines  of  Baptist  history  than  any  of 
the  Baptists  themselves,  and  we  expected  that  its  state- 
ments would  be  more  accurate.  As  we  understand  it, 
Roger  Williams  never  was  a  Baptist  in  the  modern  sense — 
that  is,  never  was  immersed,  and  the  ceremony  referred  to 
was  anabaptism,  rebaptism  by  sprinkling,  and  not  "cata- 
baptism,"  or  baptism  by  immersion.  The  baptism  of  Roger 
Williams  is  affirmed  by  Governor  Winthrop  to  have  taken 
place  in  March,  1639.  This,  however,  was  at  least  two  years 
prior  to  the  introduction  of  the  practice  of  immersion 
among  the  Baptists.  Up  to  the  year  1641  all  Baptists 
employed  sprinkling  and  pouring  as  the  mode  of  baptism. 
Now,  is  it  reasonable  to  suppose  that  Mr.  Williams,  in  join- 
ing the  Baptists,  should  have  made  use  of  a  form  of  baptism 
which  they  had  never  practiced  or  thought  of  ?  To  us  it 
seems  an  historical  anachronism.  We  admit  that  there  are 
no  positive  historical  statements  as  yet  discovered  concern- 
ing the  mode  of  Mr.  Williams'  baptism  ;  but  as  it  took  place 
in  the  year  1689,  we  assume,  as  a  matter  of  course,  that 
sprinkling  or  pouring  was  the  method,  since  no  other  was  at 
that  time  in  use  among  the  Baptists.  The  burden  of  proof 
rests  entirely  upon  those  who  assert  that  Williams  was  im- 
mersed. Has  The  Congregatiotialist  any  positive  testimony 
to  that  effect  ?  If  so,  we  shall  be  glad  to  receive  it.  We  are 
inclined  to  believe  that  no  case  of  immersion  took  place 
among  the  American  Baptists  before  the  year  1644.  It 
seems  likely  that  Roger  Williams,  on  his  return  from  Eng- 
land in  that  year,  brought  the  first  reliable  news  concerning 
the  change  which  had  taken  place  in  the  practice  of  the 
English  Baptists,  three  years  before,  and  that  it  was  then 
that  the  American  Baptists  first  resolved  to  accept  the  in- 

13 


14  DID   THEY   DIP  ? 

novation.  At  any  rate,  our  reading  has  not  yet  furnished 
us  with  anything  that  looks  like  an  authenticated  instance 
of  immersion  earlier  than  the  year  1644.  But  The  Congre- 
gationalist  is  far  better  instructed  on  these  topics  than  our- 
selves, and  we  shall  be  grateful  for  some  further  "light  and 
leading  "  with  regard  to  the  point  at  issue  from  it,  or  from 
Zion's  Advocate,  which  is  the  only  Baptist  paper  we  know 
of  that  seems  to  have  any  knowledge  of  Baptist  history. 

This  was  followed  by  another  editorial  from 
him  on  September  9,  1880,  as  follows: 

The  proofs  which  are  demanded  by  Zion's  Advocate  of 
our  recent  assertion  that  immersion  was  not  practiced  in 
England  before  a  period  as  late  as  1641  are  so  abundant 
that  one  is  embarrassed  to  know  where  to  begin,  We  shall 
mention,  in  the  first  instance,  the  silence  of  history.  This  is 
absolute  and  unbroken.  Tho'  a  number  of  works  were 
written  by  Smyth,  Helwys,  Merton  and  other  Baptists  prior 
to  1641,  and  tho'  these  were  replied  to  by  opponents  such 
as  Clifton,  Robinson,  Ainsworth  and  Johnson,  it  is  nowhere 
intimated  that  the  Baptists  were  then  in  the  practice  of 
immersion.  Nay,  more,  the  earliest  Baptist  Confessions  of 
Faith  all  contemplate  sprinkling  or  pouring  as  the  act  of 
baptism.  We  refer,  in  proof  of  this,  to  the  Confession  of 
Faith,  in  twenty  articles,  which  is  subscribed  by  John  Smyth, 
and  may  be  found  in  the  Appendix  to  Volume  I  of  Evans' 
"Early  English  Baptists."  We  refer  also  to  the  Helwys 
Confession,  entitled  "A  Declaration  of  Faith  of  English 
People  Remaining  at  Amsterdam,  Holland,"  printed  1611. 
We  also  refer  to  the  "  Propositions  and  Conclusions  Con- 
cerning the  Christian  Religion,"  which  were  published  after 
his  death,  by  "the  remainders  of  Mr.  Smyth's  company." 

It  was  not  until  the  year  1644,  three  years  after  the  m- 
vention  of  immersion,  that  any  Baptist  confession  prescribes 
"  dipping  or  plunging  the  body  in  water  as  the  way  and 
manner  of  dispensing  this  ordinance  "  ("  London  Confession 
of  1644,"  Article  40). 

He  then  quotes  some  authors  in  support  of  his 
position.     Of  Edward  Barber  he  says: 

Happily  for  us,  however,  the  above  assertion  is  confirmed 
by  the  authority  of  Edward  Barber,  the  founder  of  the  rite 
of  immersion  among  the  Baptists.  In  the  preface  to  his 
"  Treatise  of  Baptism,  or  Dipping,"  London,  1641,  the  earli- 
est book  in  the  English  language,  to  assert  that  immersion 
is  essential  to  baptism,  Mr.  Barber  praises  God  that  he,  "a 
poore  tradesman,"  was  raised  up  to  restore  this  truth  to  the 
world. 


A   STATEMENT   OF    THE    CASE.  15 

He  then  concludes  the  editorial  as  follows: 
Here  is  the  highest  Baptist  testimony  to  the  effect  that 
there  were  no  immersionists  in  England,  and  that  the  rite 
was  first  fetched  from  Holland  by  Mr.  Richard  Blount.  The 
John  Batten  who  administered  immersion  to  Mr.  Blount 
was  a  collegiant  minister,  the  successor  of  the  Brothers 
Van  der  Codde,  This  community  was  founded  and  immer- 
sion was  introduced  by  them  into  Holland  in  the  year  1619. 
It  is  not  known  whence  they  obtained  the  practice. 

These  editorials  naturally  caused  a  good  deal  of 
comment  in  Baptist  circles.  It  was  taken  for 
granted  they  were  written  by  some  Pedobaptist 
writer,  and  a  number  of  persons  wrote  The  hide- 
pendent  iox  the  name  of  the  author.  The  Independ- 
ent kept  well  its  own  secret.  It  was  only  after 
Dr,  Whitsitt's  articles  appeared  in  Johnson's  New 
Encyclopaedia  that  he  revealed  that  he  was  also 
the  author  of  these  Ijidepe?ident  ^ditovisXs.  Among 
other  things  the  Encyclopaedia  article  says: 

Some  have  fancied  that  the  new  title  was  claimed  and 
maintained  because  of  the  change  in  the  form  of  adminis- 
tering baptism,  which  is  alleged  was  substituted  in  the 
place  of  sprinkling  and  pouring.  If  these  had  been  retained 
it  would  have  been  as  impossible  for  them  to  shake  off  the 
name  of  Anabaptists  as  it  was  in  the  case  of  the  Anabaptists 
in  Germany.  After  the  adoption  of  immersion  it  was  easy 
to  insist  that  those  who  practiced  it  were  alone  "baptized 
people,"  emphasis  being  laid  not  only  on  the  subjects  as 
formerly,  but  also  on  the  mode  of  baptism.  This  latter 
emphasis  was  indicated  by  the  name  Baptist.  *  *  *  xhe 
earliest  organized  Baptist  Church  belongs  to  the  year  1610 
or  1611.  *  *  *  Ezekiel  Holliman  baptized  Williams 
and  the  rest  of  the  company.  The  ceremony  was  most 
likely  performed  by  sprinkling;  the  Baptists  of  England 
had  not  adopted  immersion,  and  there  is  no  reason  which 
renders  it  probable  that  Williams  was  in  advance  of  them. 

Dr.  Whitsitt  wrote  three  articles  for  the  papers 

to  defend  this  position:    One  in   The  Exami?ier, 

April  23,  1896;  one  in  the  Religious  Herald,  May  7, 

and  the  last  a  Statement,  which  was  publishedJn 

several  papers.    His  book,  **  A  Question  in  Baptist 


16  DID   THEY   DIP  ? 

History,"  was  published  September  17,  1896.     He 

re-affirms  the  foregoing  position  on  p.  133: 

In  view  of  the  foregoing  body  of  materials,  I  candidly 
consider  that  my  proofs  are  sufficient.  This  opinion  has 
been  confirmed  and  strengthened  by  the  renewed  investi- 
gations which  I  have  lately  undertaken  in  order  to  set 
forth  these  proofs.  Whatever  else  may  be  true  in  history, 
I  believe  it  is  beyond  question  that  the  practice  of  adult 
immersion  was  introduced  anew  into  England  in  the  year 
1641.  That  conclusion  must  be  recognized  more  and  more 
by  scholars  who  will  take  pains  to  weigh  the  facts  pre- 
sented in  the  above  discussion.  It  is  sure  to  become  one 
of  the  commonplaces  of  our  Baptist  teaching,  and  in  the 
course  of  time  men  will  be  found  to  wonder  how  any  could 
ever  have  opposed  it.  Few  other  facts  of  history  are  capable 
of  more  convincing  demonstration. 

THE  DISCOVERY. 

Dr.  Whitsitt  appears  to  have  frequently  changed 
his  mind  as  to  how  much  he  discovered.  In 
The  Exami7ier  he  makes  a  wide  claim,  but  in  his 
book  it  sinks  to  almost  nothing  at  all.  In  The 
Examiner  he  claims  Dr.  Dexter  as  "  his  learned 
and  distinguished  convert,"  but  in  the  book  Sept. 
17,  1895,  Dr.  Dexter  plays  an  entirely  different 
part. 

THE  TWO  VIEWS. 

Dr.   Whitsitt    in    The  Dr.    Whitsitt    in    his 

Examiner K'^x\\2'i^,  1896:     book,  Sept.  17,  1896: 

During    the     autumn    of  Another  investigator  was 

1877,  shortly  after  I  had  been  Rev.  Henry  Martyn  Dexter, 

put  in  charge  of  the  School  D.  D.,  of  Boston,  Mass.,  one 

to  Church    History   at    the  of  the   foremost  authorities 

Southern  Baptist  Theologi-  for  original  research   in  the 

cal  Seminary,  in  preparing  department   of    church  his- 

my  lectures  on  Baptist  His-  tory  that  has  yet  appeared  in 

tory,  I  made  the   discovery  America.     He  spent  "  some 

that,  prior  to  the  year  1641,  days "   at   the   Museum   for 

our  Baptist  people  in  Eng-  this  purpose  in  the  winter  of 

land  were  in  the  practice  of  1880-81,    and   gathered    the 

sprinkling  and  pouring  for  fruits   of  his   labors   into    a 


A   STATEMENT   OF   THE   CASE. 


17 


baptism.  I  kept  it  to  myself 
until  the  year  1880,  when  I 
had  the  happiness  to  spend 
my  summer  vacation  at  the 
British  Museum.  There  I 
assured  ^yself,  largely  by 
researches  among  the  King 
George's  pamphlets,  that  my 
discovery  was  genuine,  and 
established  it  by  many  irref- 
ragable proofs  from  con- 
temporary documents. 

*  *  *  *  Apparently 
Dr.  Dexter  was  interested  by 
my  explanations  and  proofs, 
for  he  shortly  found  his  way 
to  the  British  Museum, 
where  he  also  convinced 
himself  that  my  view  was 
correct  and  my  citations  au- 
thentic. As  a  fruit  of  these 
researches  he  issued,  near 
the  close  of  1881,  more  than 
a  twelve  month  after  my 
discovery  had  been  declared 
in  The  Independent,  the  well- 
known  volume  entitled 
"John  Smyth  the  Se-Bap- 
tist,"  wherein  he  adopted  my  . 
thesis,  defended  it  by  many 
citations,  and  entirely  ig- 
nored my  discovery  as  set 
forth  in  The  Independent. 

Naturally  I  was  glad  to 
gain  such  a  learned  and  dis- 
tinguished convert,  and  took 
little  or  no  care  of  my  rights 
in  my  discovery.  *  *  * 
This  discovery  is  my  own 
contribution  to  Baptist  his- 
tory, and  when  my  brethren 
heap  reproaches  upon  me  it 
is  nothing  but  right  that  I 
should  defend  my  property. 
Nobody  can  relish  being 
sneered  at  as  a  copyist,  when 
it  is  beyond  any  question 
that  he  is  himself  the  origi- 
nal   authority  and  the  first 

2 


volume  entitled,  "  The  True 
Story  of  John  Smyth,  the  Se- 
Baptist,  told  by  Himself  and 
his  Contemporaries."  This 
work,  which  appeared  in  the 
month  of  December,  1881,  is 
of  the  highest  importance. 
Though  I  had  reached  the 
conclusion  that  immersion 
was  introduced  into  England 
in  the  year  1641,  and  public- 
ly announced  the  same  in. 
September,  1880, 1  cheerfully 
concede  the  high  merits  of 
Dr.  Dexter.  He  uniformly 
exhibits  the  best  kind  of 
learning,  great  thoroughness 
and  patient  accuracy.  More- 
over, at  the  time  when  he 
gave  himself  to  this  partic- 
ular labor,  he  had  enjoyed 
wide  experience  in  the  busi- 
ness of  original  historical  re- 
search, and  his  acquaintance 
with  the  library  of  the  Brit- 
ish Museum  was  extensive 
and  valuable. 

Numbers  of  the  citations 
which  I  had  sought  out  ia 
the  year  1880,  and  which  I 
still  retain  in  manuscript 
form,  I  found  reproduced  in 
an  independent  fashion  by 
Dr.  Dexter  in  1881.  Like- 
wise he  fell  upon  a  good 
many  passages  that  I  had 
not  seen. 


18  DID   THEY   DIP  ? 

discoverer.  My  heart  is  wae 
to  be  compelled  to  make 
these  claims  on  my  own  be- 
half, but  I  remember  that 
the   blessed    Paul,  when 

sneers  were  heaped  on  him  , 

at  Corinth,  did  not  hesitate 
to  boast  that  he  "  was  not  a 
whit  behind  the  very  chief- 
est  apostles,"  and  I  make 
bold,  under  the  existing 
stress,  to  imitate  his  ex- 
ample. 

More  than  two  months,  that  is  in  July,  1880, 
before  Dr.  Whitsitt  wrote  his  articles  in  The  Inde- 
pendent Dr.  Dexter  had  written  for  his  paper,  The 
Congregatiojialist,  an  editorial  on  "Affused  Bap- 
tists," in  which  he  quoted  many  atithorities;  and 
fully  took  the  position  that  was  afterwards  held 
in  his  book  on  John  Smyth,  viz.:  that  Baptists 
practiced  affusion  in  England  in  the  early  part  of 
the  17th  century.  The  book,  "  The  True  Story  of 
John  Smyth,  the  Se-Baptist,"  was  published  in 
December,  1881. 

But  neither  Dr.  Dexter  nor  Dr.  Whitsitt  was 
the  *'  discoverer"  of  this  theory.  So  far  as  I  am 
able  to  judge  that  position  belongs  to  Robert 
Barclay,  an  English  Quaker.  His  book,  "  Inner 
Life  of  the  Religious  Societies  of  the  Common- 
wealth," was  published  in  1876,  and  it  contains 
almost  all  that  has  so  far  been  advanced  on  the 
.subject. 


CHAPTER  II. 

THE  ANABAPTISTS  OF  ENGLAND. 

At  the  dawn  of  the  Reformation  there  were 
those  in  England  who  held  Baptist  views.  This 
statement  can  be  abundantly  proved  from  many 
writers. 

Some  trace  the  Anabaptists  to  the  Lollards. 
W.  Carlos  Martyn,  an  eminent  Pedobaptist  his- 
torian, says:  "The  Anabaptists  are  an  innocent 
and  an  evangelical  sect,  had  long  been  the  most 
hunted  and  hated  of  reformers.  Not  a  nation  in 
Europe  but  that  had  anathematized  them.  Their 
distinctive  tenet  was  the  denial  of  baptism  to 
infants.  They  were  indeed  often  charged  with 
holding  various  dangerous  doctrines,  but  their 
peculiar  idea  of  baptism  was  of  itself  sufficient  to 
bring  upon  them  grievous  punishment.  The  Ana- 
baptists were  among  the  earliest  dissenters.  The 
disciples  of  their  creed  were  found  among  the 
Lollards  as  well  as  among  the  martyrs  of  the 
English  Reformation."  (A  History  of  the  Eng- 
lish Puritans,  p.  i66.  New  York,  1867). 

I  shall  content  myself  with  giving  the  words 
of  a  few  writers. 

Barclay,  a  very  strong  writer  and  not  a  Baptist, 
says:  "  As  we  shall  afterwards  show,  the  rise  of  the 
*  Anabaptists'  took  place  long  prior  to  the  foun- 
dation of  the  Church  of  England,  and  there  are 
also  reasons  for  believing  that  on  the  Continent 
of  Europe,  small  hidden  societies,  who  have  held 
many  of  the  opinions  of  the  Anabaptists,  have 

19 


20  DID   THEY    DIP  ? 

existed  from  the  times  of  the  Apostles.  In  the 
sense  of  the  direct  transmission  of  divine  truth 
and  the  true  nature  of  spiritual  religion,  it  seems 
probable  that  these  churches  have  a  lineage  or 
succession  more  ancient  than  the  Roman  Church." 
(Barclay's  Inner  Life  of  Religious  Societies^ 
p.  12). 

W.  J.  E.  Bennett,  of  Frome,  a  ritualistic  Episco- 
palian, says:  "The  historian  Lingard  tells  us  there 
was  a  sect  of  fanatics  who  infested  the  north  of 
Germany,  called  Puritans;  Usher  calls  them 
Waldenses;  Spelman,  Paulicians  (the  same  as 
Waldenses).  They  gained  ground  and  spread 
over  all  England.  They  rejected  all  Romish 
ceremonies,  denied  the  authority  of  the  Pope, 
and  more  particularly  refused  to  baptize  infants. 
Thirty  of  them  were  put  to  death  for  their  hereti- 
cal doctrines  near  Oxford,  but  the  remainder  still 
held  on  to  their  opinions  in  private  until  the  time 
of  Henry  II.  (1158),  and  the  historian.  Col- 
lier, tells  us  that  wherever  the  heresy  prevailed, 
the  churches  were  either  scandalously  neglected 
or  pulled  down  a7id  infants  left  unbaptized!'  (The 
Unity  of  the  Church  Broken,  Vol.  II.,  p.  15). 

Robinson,  who  has  long  been  a  standard,  says: 
"I  have  seen  enough  to  convince  me  that  the 
present  English  Dissenters,  contending  for  the 
sufficiency  of  Scripture,  and  for  primitive  Chris- 
tian liberty  to  judge  of  its  meaning,  may  be 
traced  back  in  authentic  manuscripts  to  the  Non- 
conformists, to  the  Puritans,  to  the  Lollards,  to 
the  Vallenses,  to  the  Albigenses,  and,  I  suspect, 
through  the  Paulicians  and  others  to  the  Apos- 
tles."    (Robinson's  Claude,  Vol.  II.,  p.  53). 


THE   ANABAPTISTS   OF    ENGLAND.  21 

Evans,  who  is  a  very  careful  writer,  says: 
'*  Dissidents  from  the  popular  church  in  the  early 
ages,  compelled  to  leave  it  from  the  growing  cor- 
ruption of  its  doctrines  and  morals,  were  found 
everywhere.  Men  of  apostolic  life  and  doctrine 
contended  for  the  simplicity  of  the  church  and 
the  liberty  of  Christ's  flock,  in  the  midst  of  great 
danger.  What  the  pen  failed  to  do,  the  sword  of 
the  magistrate  effected.  The  Novatians  and 
Donatists,  and  others  that  followed  them,  are  ex- 
amples. They  contended  for  the  independence 
of  the  church;  they  exalted  the  Divine  Word  as 
the  only  standard  of  faith;  they  maintained  the 
essential  purity  of  the  church,  and  the  necessity 
of  a  holy  life  springing  from  a  renewed  heart. 
Extinguished  by  the  sword,  not  of  the  Spirit — 
their  churches  broken  and  scattered — after  years 
of  patient  suffering  from  the  dominant  sect,  the 
seed  which  they  had  scattered  sprang  up  in  other 
lands.  Truth  never  dies.  Its  vitality  is  imperish- 
able. In  the  wild  waste  and  fastnesses  of  Europe 
and  Africa  it  grew.  A  succession  of  able  and  in- 
trepid men  taught  the  same  great  principles,  in 
opposition  to  a  corrupt  and  affluent  State  church, 
which  distinguish  modern  English  Nonconform- 
ists; and  many  of  them  taught  those  peculiar 
views  of  Christian  ordinances  which  are  special  to 
us  Baptists."  (History  Early  Eng.  Baptists,  Vol. 
I.,  pp.  I,  2). 

The  learned  President  Edwards  says: 
**  In  every  age  of  this  dark  time  there  appeared 
particular  persons    in   all  parts    of   Christendom 
who  bore  a  testimony  against  the  corruptions  and 


22  DID   THEY    DIP  ? 

tyranny  of  the  Church  of  Rome.  There  is  no  one 
age  of  Anti-Christ,  even  in  the  darkest  times  of 
all,  but  ecclesiastical  historians  mention  a  great 
many  by  name  who  manifested  an  abhorrence  to 
the  Pope  and  his  idolatrous  worship,  and  pleaded 
for  the  ancient  purity  of  doctrine  and  worship. 
God  was  pleased  to  maintain  an  uninterrupted 
succession  of  witnesses  through  the  whole  time,  in 
Germany,  France,  Britain  and  other  countries;  as 
historians  demonstrate  and  mention  them  by 
name,  and  give  an  account  of  the  testimony  which 
they  held.  Many  of  them  were  private  persons, 
and  some  magistrates,  and  persons  of  great  dis- 
tinction. And  there  were  numbers  in  every  age 
who  were  persecuted  and  put  to  death  for  this 
testimony."     (Edward's   Works,  Vol.  I.,   p.    460.) 

The  claim  is  distinctly  made  by  the  above 
writers  that  there  has  been  a  succession  of  wit- 
nesses from  the  days  of  the  Apostles  to  the  pres- 
ent day.  I  have,  however,  not  undertaken  to 
trace  such  a  succession,  but  in  the  space  at  my 
command,  to  set  forth  one  of  our  peculiar  princi- 
ples as  held  by  persons  or  churches  in  England 
since  the  Reformation.  Oftentimes  we  have  only 
scant  information  furnished  from  persecuting 
edicts,  and  now  and  then  from  other  sources. 

Thus  before  the  time  of  the  Reformation  in 
England  Baptist  principles  were  held  by  many 
people,  and  in  many  parts  of  the  country.  At 
the  very  dawn  of  the  Reformation  Baptist  princi- 
ples began  to  stir  the  wrath  of  Henry  VIII.  In 
151 1  several  persons  were  tried  by  Archbishop 
Warham  for  holding  Anabaptist  opinions.    These 


THE   ANABAPTISTS   OF   ENGLAND.  23 

men  held,  so  it  was  charged,  "  that  the  sacrament 
of  baptism  and  confirmation  is  not  necessary  nor 
profitable  for  a  man's  soul."  (Collier's  Eccl. 
Hist.  Vol.  IV.,  p.  4). 

In  1 529-1 534  the  Anabaptists  are  distinctly 
traceable  in  England.  John  Henry  Blount,  an 
Episcopalian,  says:  *'  In  England  the  Anabap- 
tists are  not  distinctly  traceable  before  the  year 
1534,  although  much  similarity  is  to  be  observed 
between  their  principles  and  those  of  sectarians 
spoken  of  by  the  bishops  in  1529  as  'certain 
apostates,  friars,  monks,  lewd  priests,  bankrupt 
merchants,  vagabonds  and  lewd  idle  fellows  of 
corrupt  intent,'  who  *  have  embraced  the  abomi- 
nable and  erroneous  opinions  lately  sprung  in  Ger- 
many.' "  (Froude's  Hist,  of  England,  Vol.  I.,  p. 
211.     Dictionary  of  Sects,  p.  26). 

Blount  further  says: 

"  In  A.  D.  1534,  however,  a  royal  proclamation 
was  issued,  in  which  it  was  said  that  many 
strangers  are  come  into  this  realm,  who,  though 
they  were  baptized  in  their  infancy,  yet  have,  in 
contempt  of  the  holy  sacrament  of  baptism,  re- 
baptized  themselves.  They  are  ordered  to  depart 
out  of  the  realm  in  twelve  days,  under  pain  of 
death."  (Wilkins'  Concil.  III.,  779.  Dictionary 
of  Sects,  p.  26.    London,  1874). 

It  is  certain  that  they  did  not  return  to  the 
Continent  and  did  remain  in  England.  Cromwell 
left  this  memorandum  in  his  pocket:  **  First, 
touching  the  Anabaptists  and  what  the  king  will 
do  with  them."     (Ellis'  Orig.  Let. II.,  120). 


24  DID   THEY   DIP  ? 

The  old  chronicler  Stowe,  1535,  gives  the  fol- 
lowing details: 

"  The  25th  day  of  May  were — in  St.  Paul's 
Church,  London — examined  nineteen  men  and  six 
women,  born  in  Holland,  whose  opinions  were: 
First,  that  in  Christ  is  not  two  natures,  God  and 
man;  secondly,  that  Christ  took  neither  flesh  nor 
blood  of  the  Virgin  Mary;  thirdly,  that  children 
born  of  infidels  may  be  saved;  fourthly,  that 
baptism  of  children  is  of  none  effect;  fifthly,  that 
the  sacrament  of  Christ's  body  is  but  bread  only; 
sixthly,  that  he  who  after  baptism  sinneth  wit- 
tingly, sinneth  deadly,  and  cannot  be  saved. 
Fourteen  of  them  were  condemned;  a  man  and  a 
woman  were  burnt  in  Smithfield;  the  other  twelve 
of  them  were  sent  to  other  towns,  there  to  be 
burnt." 

Froude  says  of  them: 

**  The  details  are  gone,  their  names  are  gone. 
Poor  Hollanders  they  were,  and  that  is  all. 
Scarcely  the  fact  seemed  worth  the  mention,  so 
shortly  is  it  told  in  a  passing  paragraph.  For 
them  no  Europe  was  agitated,  no  courts  were  or- 
dered into  mourning,  no  Papal  hearts  trembled 
with  indignation.  At  their  death  the  world  looked 
on  complacent,  indifferent  or  exulting.  Yet  here, 
too,  out  of  twenty-five  poor  men  and  women  were 
found  fourteen  who  by  no  terror  of  stake  or  tort- 
ure could  be  tempted  to  say  they  believed  what 
they  did  not  believe.  History  has  for  them  no 
word  of  praise;  yet  they,  too,  were  not  giving 
their  blood  in  vain.  Their  lives  might  have  been 
as  useless  as  the  lives  of  the  most  of  us.     In  their 


THE   ANABAPTISTS   OF    ENGLAND. 


25 


deaths  they  assisted  to  pay  the  purchase-money 
for  England's  freedom."  (Froude's  History  of 
England,  Vol.  II.,  p.  365). 

In  some  articles  put  forth  in  1536  it  is  declared: 
*'  That  the  opinions  of  the  Anabaptists  and  Pela- 
gians  are    to   be   held  for    detestable  heresies." 
(Strype's  Memorials  of  Archbishop  Cranmer,  Vol. 
I.,  p.  85.    Oxford  Ed.  1848). 
The  Penny  Encyclopaedia  says: 
"  Little  is  known  of   the    Baptists  of  England 
before  the   sixteenth  century.     Their  name  then 
appears    among    the   various    sects  which   were 
struggling  for  civil  and  religious  freedom.     Their 
opinions  at  this  early  period  were  sufficiently  pop- 
ular to  attract  the  notice   of   the  national  estab- 
lishment, as  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  at  a  con- 
vocation held  in  1536,  they  were  denounced  as  de- 
testable heretics,  to  be  utterly  condemned.  Proc- 
lamations to  banish  the  Baptists  from  the  kingdom 
were  allowed,  their  books  were  burnt,  and  several 
individuals  suffered  at   the  stake.     The  last  per- 
son who  was  burnt   in    England   was  a  Baptist." 
(Penny  Ency.,  Vol.  III.,  pp.  416,  417). 

Goadby  thus  speaks  of  the  reign  of  Henry  VIII. 
and  his  persecutions  of  the  Baptists: 

'•  Bitterly  as  he  hated  the  Papist  party,  after  he 
had  broken  with  Rome  it  was  not  long  before  he 
revealed  a  still  more  bitter  hatred  of  all  Baptists, 
English  and  Continental."  "But  neither  threats 
nor  cajolery  prevented  the  spread  of  Baptist 
opinions.  Like  the  Israelites  in  Egypt,  '  the  more 
they  were  afflicted,  the  more  they  multiplied 
and  grew.'  "  (Goadby's  Bye-Paths  of  Baptist  His- 
tory, pp.  72-74). 


26  DID   THEY    DIP  ? 

Strype,  1538,  says  of  the  king: 

**  The  sect  of  the  Anabaptists  did  now  begin  ta 
pester  this  church;  and  would  openly  dispute 
their  principles  in  taverns  and  public  places;  and 
some  of  them  were  taken  up.  Many  also  of  their 
books  were  brought  in  and  printed  here  also; 
which  w^as  the  cause  that  the  king  now  sent  out  a 
severe  proclamation  against  them  and  their  books. 
To  which  he  joined  the  Sacramentarians,  as  lately 
with  the  others  come  into  the  land,  declaring, 
'  that  he  abhorred  and  detested  their  errors;  and 
those  that  were  apprehended  he  would  make  ex- 
amples.' Ordering  that  they  should  be  detected 
and  brought  before  the  king  or  his  council;  and 
that  all  that  were  not  should  in  eight  or  ten  days 
depart  the  kingdom."  (Strype's  Memorials,  Vol. 
I.,  p.  155). 

After  condemning  their  books  the  king  decreed : 

"  The  king  declares  concerning  Anabaptists  and 
other  Sacramentarians  lately  come  into  the  realm, 
that  he  abhorred  and  detested  their  errors, 
and  intended  to  proceed  against  them  that  were 
already  apprehended,  according  to  their  merits; 
to  the  intent  his  subjects  should  take  example  by 
their  punishments  not  to  adhere  to  such  false  and 
detestable  opinions,  but  utterly  to  forsake  and 
relinquish  them.  And  that  wheresoever  any  of 
them  be  known,  they  be  detected,  and  his  majesty 
and  council  be  informed  with  all  convenient  speed, 
with  all  manner  abettors  and  printers  of  the  same 
opinions.  And  his  majesty  charged  the  same 
Anabaptists  and  Sacramentarians  not  apprehended 
and  known,  that  they  within   eight  or  ten  days 


THE   ANABAPTISTS   OF   ENGLAND.  2T 

depart  out  of  the  realm,  upon  pain  of  the  loss  of 
their  life  and  forfeiture  of  their  goods."  (Strype's 
Memorials,  Vol.  I.,  pp.  410-412.  Collier's  Eccl. 
Hist.,  Vol.  IX.,  pp.  161,  162). 

A  few  months  later  also  an  act  of  Parliament 
was  passed  (32  Henry  VHL,  cap.  49),  granting  a. 
general  pardon  to  all  the  king's  subjects  except- 
ing those  who  said:  "  That  infants  ought  not  to 
be  baptized,  and  if  they  were  baptized  that  they 
ought  to  be  rebaptized  when  they  came  of  lawful 
age." 

A  Declaration  of  Faith  was  then  drawn  up  en- 
dorsing the  action  of  the  king  in  his  persecutions 
of  the  Anabaptists.     One  section  reads: 

**  Englishmen  detest  the  Anabaptists,  '  Sacra- 
mentaries,'  and  all  other  heresies  and  errors,  and 
with  great  reverence  do  solemnize  holy  baptisme, 
the  sacrament  of  the  blessed  body  and  blood  of 
Christ,  and  other  sacraments  and  sacramentalls,. 
as  they  have  done  in  tymes  past,  with  all  the 
laudable  ceremonies  and  dayly  masses;  and  do  the 
other  service  of  God  in  their  churches,  as  honor- 
able and  devoutly,  paye  their  tythes  and  offerings 
truely  as  ever  they  did,  and  as  any  men  do  in  any 
part  of  Christendome,"  etc.  (Collier's  Eccl.  Hist., 
Vol.  IX.,  p.  163). 

Some  of  these  were  burned.  (Stowe's  Chronicle, 

P-  579)- 

Latimer  says:  "The  Anabaptists  that  were 
burnt  here  in  divers  towns  in  England  (as  I  have 
heard  of  credible  men,  I  saw  them  not  myself),, 
went  to  their  death,  even  intrepide,  as  ye  will  say^ 
without  any  fear  in  the  world,  cheerfully.     WelL 


28  DID   THEY    DIP  ? 

let  them  go."  (Sermons  of  Hugh  Latimer,  Vol. 
L,  pp.  143.  144). 

Latimer  says  again; 

"I  should  have  told  you  here  of  a  certain  sect 
of  heretics  that  spake  against  their  order  and 
doctrine;  they  will  have  no  magistrates  nor  judges 
on  the  earth.  Here  I  have  to  tell  you  what  I 
have  heard  of  late,  by  the  relations  of  a  credible 
person  and  a  worshipful  man,  of  a  town  of  this 
realm  of  England  that  hath  about  500  of  heretics 
of  this  erroneous  opinion  in  it."  The  margin 
says  they  were  Anabaptists.  (Sermons,  p.  151. 
Parker  Society,  Vol.  v.). 

Collier  says:  "Some  few  days  before,  four 
Dutch  Anabaptists,  three  men  and  a  woman,  had 
faggots  tied  to  their  backs  at  Paul's  Cross,  and 
one  man  and  a  woman,  of  the  same  sect  and 
country,  were  burnt  in  Smithfield.  Cranmer, 
upon  the  first  of  October,  with  some  others,  had  a 
commission  from  the  king  to  try  some  Anabap- 
tists, which,  by  comparing  the  dates  of  the  com- 
mission with  that  of  the  execution,  we  may  con- 
clude the  trial  passed  upon  the  persons  above 
mentioned."     (Eccl.  Hist.  Vol.  IV,,  p.  429). 

Bishop  Burnet,  1547,  informs  us: 

"  There  were  many  Baptists  in  several  parts  of 
England."     (Neal's    Hist.  Puritans,  Vol.  H.,  pp. 

354,  355)- 

Of  the  Baptists  of  the  reign  of  Edward  VL, 
1547-1553,  Goadby  says: 

"  In  the  first  year  of  Edward's  reign,  Ridley  and 
Gardiner  united  together  in  a  commission  to  deal 
with  two  Baptists  in  Kent.     A  Protestant  Inquisi- 


THE   ANABAPTISTS   OF    ENGLAND.  29= 

tion  was  established,  with  Cranmer  at  its  head. 
They  were  to  pull  up  '  the  noxious  weeds  of  her- 
esy4  Their  work  was  to  be  done  with  the  forms 
of  justice  and  in  secret.  They  might  fine,  im- 
prison, torture,  and,  in  all  cases  of  obstinate  here- 
tics, hand  them  over  to  the  civil  power  to  be 
burnt.  Four  years  later  this  commission  was 
renewed,  and  in  the  same  year  Baptists  were  a  sec- 
ond time  excluded  from  a  general  pardon.  It 
was  this  inquisition  that  condemned  Joan  Bucher 
and  scattered,  or  tried  to  scatter,  the  congrega- 
tions of  Baptists  gathered  in  Kent.  Still  their 
numbers  increased.  Strype  tells  us  that  their 
opinions  were  believed  by  many  honest  meaning 
people;  and  another  writer  affirms  that  the  arti- 
cles of  religion,  issued  just  before  the  king's 
death,  '  were  principally  designed  to  vindicate  the 
English  Reformation  from  that  slur  and  disgrace 
which  Anabaptists'  tenets  had  brought  upon  it,' 
a  clear  proof  that  Baptists  were,  at  that  period, 
neither  few  nor  unimportant."  (Goadby's  Bye- 
Paths  of  Baptist  History,  pp.  74,  75). 

1549  an  act  was  passed  against  the  Anabaptists 
by  the  Parliament  of  Edward  VI.  (3  Edward 
VI.,  C.24). 

London,  June  25,  1549,  Bishop  John  Hooper  in. 
a  letter  to  Henry  Bullinger  says: 

"  The  Anabaptists  flock  to  the  place  and  give 
me  much  trouble."  (Original  Letters  Relative  to 
the  English  Reformation,  Vol.  I.,  p.  65.  Cambridge 
Ed.  1846). 

Bishop  Vowler  Short  says:  "Complaints  had 
been  brought  to  the   council  of  the  prevalence  of 


"30  DID   THEY   DIP  ? 

Anabaptists.  *  *  *  *  To  check  the  prog- 
ress of  these  opinions  a  commission  was  ap- 
pointed." (Short's  Hist.  Church  of  England,  Vol. 

VI.,  p.  543). 

Dr.  Hase  says: 

"In  general, Anabaptism  required  that  those  who 
came  over  to  it  should  be  possessed  of  the  strict 
heroic  morals  of  the  early  Christians,  the  same  con- 
tempt for  the  world  and  its  pleasures  and  pains, 
and  even  its  outward  forms.  By  baptism  a  renun- 
ciation was  made  of  the  devil,  the  world  and  the 
flesh;  and  a  vow  taken  to  do  nothing  but  the  will 
of  God.  Any  willful  sin  of  an  Anabaptist  would 
not  be  pardoned,  and  entailed  on  its  perpetrator 
hopeless  expulsion  from  the  commtmity,  and  a 
loss  of  the  grace  of  God.  It  was  exactly  on  this 
account  that  the  heresy  was  so  dangerous,  for  the 
greater  part  of  its  adherents  could  appeal  to  the 
sanctity  of  their  mode  of  life."  (Dr.  Hase's  Neue 
Propheten.  Apud  Madden,  Phantasmata,  Vol.  II., 
pp.  439,  440). 

"  An  ecclesiastical  Commission  in  the  begin- 
ning of  this  year  was  issued  out  for  the  examina- 
tion of  the  Anabaptists  and  Arians,  that  began 
now  to  spring  up  apace  and  show  themselves  more 
openly."     (Strype's  Life    of   Sir   Thomas  Smith, 

P-  37). 

London,  June  29,  1550,  Bishop  John  Hooper 
writing  to  Henry  BuUinger  in  regard  to  Essex 
and  Kent  says:  "That  district  is  troubled  with 
the  frenzy  of  the  Anabaptists  more  than  any  other 
part  of  the  kingdom."     (Original  Letters,  Vol.  I., 

p-  87). 


THE   ANABAPTISTS   OF    ENGLAND.  31 

Strypesays: 

"  There  were  such  assemblies  in  Kent."  (Memo- 
rials, Vol.  IL,  p.  266). 

Bishop  Ridley's  Visitation  Articles  required: 

"  Whether  any  of  the  Anabaptists'  sect,  or 
other,  use  notoriously  any  unlawful  or  private 
conventicles,  wherein  they  do  use  doctrine  or  ad- 
ministration of  sacraments,  separating  themselves 
from  the  rest  of  the  parish? 

"Whether  any  speak  against  infant  baptism?" 
(Cardwell's  Documentary  Annals  of  the  Reformed 
Church  of  England,  Vol.  I.,  p.  91). 

Strype  gives  us  additional  information: 

"  In  January  27th  a  number  of  persons,  a  sort  of 
Anabaptists,  about  sixty,  met  in  a  house  on  a  Sun- 
day in  the  parish  of  Bocking,  in  Essex,  where  arose 
among  them  a  great  dispute,  *  Whether  it  were 
necessary  to  stand  or  kneel,  bare-headed  or  cov- 
ered, at  prayers?  And  they  concluded  the  cere- 
mony not  to  be  material,  but  that  the  heart  before 
God  was  required,  and  nothing  else.'  Such  other 
like  warm  disputes  there  were  about  Scripture. 
There  were,  likewise,  such  assemblies  now  in 
Kent.  These  were  looked  upon  as  dangerous  to 
church  and  state,  and  two  of  the  company  were 
thereof  committed  to  the  Marshallsea,  and  orders 
were  sent  to  apprehend  the  rest."  (Memorials  of 
Cranmer,  Vol.  I.,  p.  337). 

The  Parliament  of  1551  exempted  the  Anabap- 
tists from  the  pardon  which  was  granted  to  those 
who  took  part  in  the  late  rebellion. 

During  the  reign  of  Elizabeth,  1558-1603,  Eng- 
land was  full  of  Anabaptists. 


32  DID   THEY    DIP  i 

Marsden,  one  of  the  calmest  of  the  Puritan 
historians,  says: 

"  But  the  Anabaptists  were  the  most  numerous, 
and  for  some  time  by  far  the  most  formidable  op- 
ponents of  the  church.  They  are  said  to  have 
existed  in  England  since  the  days  of  the  Lollards, 
but  their  chief  strength  was  more  abroad,"  etc. 
(Marsden,  p.  144). 

Marsden,  further  says: 

•'  In  the  judgment  of  the  church  party,  and  not 
a  few  of  the  Puritans,  Anabaptists  were  heretics 
of  the  worst  kind,  and  those  who  denied  the 
necessity  or  validity  of  infant  baptism,  however 
orthodox  on  other  points,  are  constantly  classed 
by  writers  of  that  period  with  Donatists,  infidels, 
and  atheists."     (Marsden,  p.  65). 

Bishop  Cox  writing  to  Gaulter,  says: 

**  You  must  not  grieve,  my  Gaulter,  that  secta- 
ries are  showing  themselves  to  be  mischievous  and 
wicked  interpreters  of  your  most  just  opinion. 
For  it  cannot  be  otherwise  but  that  tares  must 
grow  in  the  Lord's  field,  and  that  in  no  small 
quantity.  Of  this  kind  are  the  Anabaptists, 
Donatists,  Arians,  Papists,  and  all  other  good  for 
nothing  tribes  of  sectaries."  (Bishop  Cox  to 
Gaulter,  Zurich  Letters,  285). 

Bishop  Aylmer: 

"  The  Anabaptists,  with  infinite  other  swarms  of 
Satanistes,  do  you  think  that  every  pulpit  may 
wyll  be  hable  to  aunswer  them?  I  pray  God  there 
may  be  many  that  can."  (Bishop  Aylmer's  Har- 
borough  for  Faithful  Subjects.    Maitland,  p.  216). 

"And  in  these  latter  dales,  the  old  festered  sores 


THE  ANABAPTISTS  OF  ENGLAND.  33 

newly  broke  out,  as  the  Anabaptists,  the  free- 
willers,  with  infinite  other  swarms  of  God's  ene- 
mies. These  *  vgglie  monsters,'  *  brodes  of  the 
devvil's  brotherhood.'  "     (p.  205). 

Dr.  Barker,  in  declining  the  Archbishopric 
of  Canterbury,  says  in  his  letter: 

*•  They  say  that  the  realm  is  full  of  Anabaptists, 
Arians,  libertines,  free-will  men,  etc.,  against  whom 
I  only  thought  ministers  should  have  need  to  fight 
in  unity  of  doctrine."  (Burnet's  Reformation, 
Vol.   II.,  p.  359). 

Jewel,  in  his  correspondence  with  the  Swiss 
divines,  complains: 

"  We  found,  at  the  beginning  of  the  reign 
of  Elizabeth,  a  large  and  inauspicious  crop 
of  Arians,  Anabaptists,  and  other  pests,  which, 
I  know  not  how,  but  as  mushrooms  spring  up 
in  the  night  and  in  darkness,  so  these  sprung 
up  in  that  darkness  and  unhappy  night  of  the 
Marian  times.  These,  I  am  informed,  and  hope 
it  is  the  fact,  have  retreated  before  the  light 
of  pure  doctrines,  like  owls  at  the  light  of  the 
sun,  and  are  nowhere  to  be  found."  (Works 
of  Bishop  Jewel,  Vol.  IV.,  p.   1240). 

Greenwood  says: 

"  I  am  not  an  Anabaptist,  thank  God." 

A  letter  was  addressed  to  the  "  Dutch  Church," 
in  London,  1 573,  rebuking  them  for  sowing  discord 
among  English  people.  (Strype's  Annals  Ref., 
Vol.  IV.,  p.  520). 

On  Easter  day  a  private  conventicle  was  dis- 
covered near  Aldersgate  Bar,  and  twenty-seven 
were  apprehended.  Four  recanted;  but  "eleven 
3 


34  DID   THEY   DIP  ? 

of  them  were  condemned  in  the  Consistory  of  the 
St.  Paul's  to  be  burnt,  nine  of  them  were  banished, 
and  two  suffered  the  extremity  of  the  fire  in 
Smithfield,  July  22,  1575."  (Neal's  Hist.  Puritans, 
Vol.  I.,  p.  340.  Ed.  1732.  Strype's  Annals  Ref., 
Vol.  III.,  p.  564.    Ed.  1824). 

Collier  says:  **  To  go  back  a  little:  On  Easter 
day  this  spring  a  conventicle  of  Dutch  Baptists 
was  discovered  at  a  house  without  the  bars  at 
Aldgate."    (Collier's  Eccl.  Hist.,  Vol.  VI.,  p.  543). 

Fuller  says: 

"  Now  began  the  Anabaptists  wonderfully  to 
increase  in  the  land;  and  as  we  are  sorry  that 
any  countryman  should  be  seduced  with  that 
opinion,  so  we  are  glad  that  (the)  English  as  yet 
were  free  from  that  infection.  For  on  Easter  day, 
April  3,  was  disclosed  a  congregation  of  Dutch 
Anabaptists  without  Aldgate  in  London,  whereof 
seven  and  twenty  were  taken  and  imprisoned;  and 
four,  bearing  faggots,  at  Paul's-Cross  solemnly 
recanted  their  dangerous  opinions."  (Fuller's 
Church  Hist.  Britain,  Vol.  II.,  p.  506). 

Collier,  1589,  says:  "This  provision  was  no 
more  than  necessary;  for  the  Dutch  Anabaptists 
held  private  conventicles  in  London  and  perverted 
a   great  many."     (Collier's  Eccl.  Hist.,  Vol.  VI., 

p.  452). 

Dr.  Some  admits  the  same  fact  in  his  reply  to 
Barrowe.  He  affirms  that  "there  were  several 
Anabaptisticale  conventicles  in  London  and  other 
places."  They  were  not  all  Dutchmen,  for  he 
further  says:  *'  Some  persons  of  these  sentiments 
have  been  bred  at  our  universities." 


THE   ANABAPTISTS   OF    ENGLAND.  35 

The  Baptists  of  England  from  this  date  to  1641 
underwent  severe  persecutions,  but  they  increased 
in  numbers.  After  the  abolition  of  the  Court  of 
High  Commission  and  the  Court  of  Star  Chamber 
in  1641,  when  they  were  able  to  assert  themselves, 
there  were  a  surprising  number  of  them  in  London 
and  throughout  England.  Dexter  himself  gives 
the  names  of  eleven  churches  in  England  as  early 
as  1626.     (The  True  Story  of  John  Smyth,  p.  42). 

Herbert  S.  Skeats,  a  Pedobaptist,  says: 

"  It  has  been  asserted  that  a  Baptist  Church 
existed  in  England  in  A.  D.  1417.  (Robinson's 
Claude,  Vol.  II.,  p.  54).  There  were  certainly 
Baptist  Churches  in  England  as  early  as  the  year 
1589  (Dr.  Some's  reply  to  Barrowe,  quoted  in 
Guiney's  Hist.,  Vol.  I,,  p.  109);  and  there  could 
scarcely  have  been  several  organized  communities 
without  the  corresponding  opinions  having  been 
held  by  individuals,  and  some  churches  estab- 
lished for  years  previous  to  this  date."  (Hist. 
Dissenting  Churches  of  England,  p.  22). 

Neal  says  that  in  1644  there  were  54  Baptist 
Churches  in  England.  (Neal's  Hist.  Puritans,  Vol. 

III.,  P,  175). 

Baillie  said  in  1646: 

"  Hence  it  was  that  the  Anabaptists  made  little 
noyse  in  Englaiid,  till  of  late  the  Independents 
have  corrupted  and  made  worse  the  principles  of 
the  old  Separatists,  proclaiming  for  errours  a 
liberty  both  in  Church  and  State;  under  this 
shelter  the  Anabaptists  have  lift  up  their  head 
and  increased  their  numbers  much  above  all  other 
sects  of  the  land.  (Anabaptism  the  True  Foun- 
taine,  ch.  i.) 


DID   THEY   DIP  ? 


There  is  no  proof  whatever  that  these  churches 
came  from  Smyth's  or  Blount's,  or  that  they  ever 
practiced  sprinkling  for  baptism.  They  evidently 
were  Baptist  Churches. 


CHAPTER  III. 

IMMERSION   IN   ENGLAND. 

I  have  not  space,  nor  has  the  busy  reader  time 
to  read,  a  complete  history  of  immersion  in  Eng- 
land. It  began  with  Christianity  in  England,  con- 
tinued as  the  general  practice  till  the  seventeenth 
century  and  is  even  now  the  theory  of  the  Estab- 
lished Church.  France  was  the  first  country  that 
tolerated  sprinkling  for  baptism  in  the  fourteenth 
century.  Although  the  climate  in  England  was 
cold,  immersion  did  not  give  place  to  sprinkling 
till  long  after.  Scotland  under  the  influence  of 
Calvin  and  Knox,  soon  after  the  Reformation,  be- 
gan to  practice  sprinkling  and  pouring,  but  it  had 
but  little  effect  upon  England.  These  facts  are 
fully  set  forth  by  the  historians,  but  I  shall  take 
space  for  the  words  of  but  a  few  of  them. 

Dr.  Wall,  an  Episcopalian,  says: 

'•One  would  have  thought  that  the  cold  countries 
should  have  been  the  first  that  should  have  changed 
the  custom  from  dipping  to  affusion,  because  in 
cold  climates  the  bathing  of  the  body  in  water  may 
seem  much  more  unnatural  and  dangerous  to  the 
health  than  in  the  hot  ones  (and  it  is  to  be  noted, 
by  the  way,  that  all  of  those  countries  of  whose 
rites  of  baptism,  and  immersion  used  in  it,  we  have 
any  account  in  the  Scriptures  or  other  ancient  his- 
tory, are  in  hot  climates,  where  frequent  and  com- 
mon bathing  both  of  infants  and  grown  persons  is 
natural,  and  even  necessary  to  the  health).  But 
by  history  it  appears  that  the  cold  climates  held 
37 


38  DID   THEY   DIP  ? 

the  custom  of  dipping  as  long  as  any;  for  Eng- 
land, which  is  one  of  the  coldest,  was  one  of  the 
latest  that  admitted  this  alteration  of  the  ordinary- 
way."     (Wall's  Hist.,  Vol.  I.,  p.  575). 

I  will  let  Dr.  Schaff  tell  something  of  the  uni- 
versality of  immersion  in  England: 

King  Edward  VI.  and  Queen  Elizabeth  were  immersed. 
The  first  Prayer  Book  of  Edward  VI.  (1549)  followed  the 
Office  of  Sarum,  directs  the  priest  to  dip  the  child  in  water 
thrice:  "  first,  dypping  the  right  side;  secondly,  the  left  side; 
the  third  time,  dypping  the  face  toward  the  fonte."  In  the 
second  Prayer  Book  (1552)  the  priest  is  simply  directed  to 
dip  the  child  discreetly  and  warily;  and  permission  is  given, 
for  the  first  time  in  Great  Britain,  to  substitute  pouring  if 
the  godfathers  and  godmothers  certify  that  the  child  is 
weak.  "  During  the  reign  of  Elizabeth,"  says  Dr.  Wall, 
"  many  fond  ladies  and  gentlewomen  first,  and  then  by 
degrees  the  common  people,  would  obtain  the  favor  of  the 
priests  to  have  their  children  pass  for  weak  children  too 
tender  to  endure  dipping  in  the  water."  The  same  writer 
traces  the  practice  of  sprinkling  to  the  period  of  the  Long 
Parliament  and  the  Westminster  Assembly.  This  change 
in  England  and  other  Protestant  countries  from  immersion 
to  pouring,  and  from  pouring  to  sprinkling,  was  encouraged 
by  the  authority  of  Calvin,  who  declared  the  mode  to  be  a 
matter  of  no  importance;  and  by  the  Westminster  Assem- 
bly of  Divines  (1643-1652),  which  decided  that  pouring  and 
sprinkling  are  "  not  only  lawful,  but  also  sufficient."  The 
Westminster  Confession  declares:  "Dipping  of  the  person 
into  the  water  is  not  necessary;  but  baptism  is  rightly 
administered  by  pouring  or  sprinkling  water  upon  the  per- 
son."   (Teach.,  pp.  51,  52). 

Sir  David  Brewster  says: 

During  the  persecution  of  Mary,  many  persons,  most  of 
whom  were  Scotchmen,  fled  from  England  to  Geneva,  and 
there  greedily  imbibed  the  opinions  of  that  church.  In  1556 
a  book  was  published  in  that  place  containing  "The  Form 
of  Prayer  and  Ministration  of  the  Sacraments,  approved  by 
the  famous  and  godly  learned  man,  John  Calvin,"  in  which 
the  administrator  is  enjoined  to  take  water  in  his  hand  and 
lay  it  upon  the  child's  forehead.  These  Scotch  exiles,  who 
had  renounced  the  authority  of  the  Pope,  implicitly 
acknowledged  the  authority  of  Calvin;  and  returning  to 
their  own  country,  with  Knox  at  their  head,  in  1559,  estab- 
lished sprinkling  in  Scotland.     From  Scotland  this  practice 


IMMERSION  IN   ENGLAND.  39 

made  its  way  into  England  in  the  reign  cf  Elizabeth,  but 
was  not  authorized  by  the  Established  Church.  In  the  As- 
sembly of  Divines,  held  at  Westminster  in  1643,  it  was  keenly 
debated  whether  immersion  or  sprinkling  should  be 
adopted:  25  voted  for  sprinkling  and  '24  for  immersion;  and 
even  this  small  majority  was  obtained  at  the  earnest  request 
of  Dr.  Lightfoot,  who  had  acquired  great  influence  in  that 
assembly.  Sprinkling  is  therefore  the  general  practice  of 
this  country.  Many  Christians,  however,  especially  the 
Baptists,  reject  it.  The  Greek  Church  universally  adheres 
to  immersion.    (Edin.  Ency.,  Vol.  III.,  p.  236). 

I  shall  give  but  one  other  authority  in  this  con- 
nection and  that  is  the  scholarly  Dean  Stanley. 
He  says: 

We  now  pass  to  the  changes  in  the  form  itself.  For 
the  first  thirteen  centuries  the  almost  universal  practice  of 
baptism  was  that  of  which  we  read  in  the  New  Testament, 
and  which  is  the  very  meaning  of  the  word  baptize;  that 
those  who  were  baptized  were  plunged,  submerged,  im- 
mersed into  the  water.  That  practice  is  still,  as  we  have 
seen,  continued  in  Eastern  Churches.  In  the  Western 
Church  it  still  lingers  among  Roman  Catholics  in  the 
solitary  instance  of  the  Cathedral  of  Milan;  amongst  Prot- 
estants in  the  numerous  sect  of  the  Baptists.  It  lasted  long 
into  the  Middle  Ages.  Even  the  Icelanders,  who  at  first 
shrank  from  the  water  of  their  freezing  lakes,  were  recon- 
ciled when  they  found  that  they  could  use  the  warm  water 
of  the  geysers.  And  the  cold  climate  of  Russia  has  not 
been  found  an  obstacle  to  its  continuance  throughout  that 
vast  empire.  Even  in  the  Church  of  England  it  is  still  ob- 
served in  theory.  The  Rubric  in  the  public  baptism  for 
infants  enjoins  that,  unless  for  special  causes,  they  are  to  be 
dipped  not  sprinkled.  Edward  VI.  and  Elizabeth  were 
both  immersed.  But  since  the  beginning  of  the  seventeenth 
century  the  practice  has  become  exceedingly  rare.  With 
the  few  exceptions  just  mentioned,  the  whole  of  the  Western 
Churches  have  now  substituted  for  the  ancient  bath  the 
ceremony  of  letting  fall  a  few  drops  of  water  on  the  face. 
(Christian  Institutions,  pp.  17,  18). 

Many  events  of  English  history  show  how 
deeply  imbedded  in  the  English  mind  was  the 
idea  of  immersion.  In  the  year  429  the  Britons 
won  a  great  battle  over  the  Saxons.  The  follow- 
ing events  then  occurred  : 


40  DID   THEY   DIP  ? 

"The  holy  days  of  Lent  were  also  at  hand  and 
were  rendered  more  religious  by  the  presence  of 
the  priests,  insomuch  that  the  people  being  in- 
structed by  daily  sermons,  resorted  in  crowds  to 
be  baptized;  for  most  of  the  army  desired  ad- 
mission to  the  saving  water;  a  church  was  pre- 
pared with  boughs  for  the  feast  of  the  resurrec- 
tion of  our  Lord,  and  so  fitted  up  in  that  martial 
camp  as  it  were  in  a  city.  The  army  advanced, 
still  wet  with  the  baptismal  water;  the  faith  of  the 
people  was  strengthened,  and  whereas  human 
power  had  before  been  despaired  of,  the  Divine 
assistance  was  now  relied  upon.  The  enemy 
received  advice  of  the  state  of  the  army,  and  not 
questioning  their  success  against  an  unarmed 
multitude,  hastened  forward,  but  their  approach 
was,  by  the  scouts,  made  known  to  the  Britons, 
the  greater  part  of  whose  forces  being  just  come 
from  the  font,  after  the  celebration  of  Easter, 
and  preparing  to  arm  and  carry  on  the  war, 
Germanus  declared  he  would  be  their  leader." 
(Bede's  Eccl.  Hist.,  B.  L  c.  XX.). 

One  of  the  most  notable  events  of  English 
history  was  the  baptism,  A.  D.  596,  of  ten  thousand 
Saxons  in  the  river  Swale.  Fabyan,  the  old 
chronicler,  thus  speaks  of  the  success  of  the 
work  of  Augustine: 

"He  had  in  one  day  christened  xm.  of  Saxons  or 
Anglis  in  ye  west  ryur,  yt  is  called  Swale." 
(Fabyan's  Chronicle,  Vol.  L,  p.  96). 

Pope  Gregory  in  a  letter  to  Eulogius,  Patriarch 
of  Alexandria,  informs  him  of  this  great  success 
of  Augustine's.     He  says: 


IMMERSION   IN   ENGLAND.  41 

"  More  than  ten  thousand  English,  they  tell  us, 
were  baptized  by  the  same  brother,  our  fellow 
bishop,  which  I  communicate  to  you  to  announce 
to  the  people  of  Alexandria,  and  that  you  may  do 
something  in  prayer  for  the  dwellers  at  the  ends 
of   the   earth."     (Patrol.  Lat.,  Vol.    LXXVII.,  p. 

951)- 

Gregory  understood  this  baptism  to  be  an  im- 
mersion.    He  said: 

"We  baptize  by  trine  immersion."  (Patrol.  Lat., 
Vol.  LXXVII.,  p.  498). 

Gocelyn,  in  his  life  of  Augustine,  says: 

"  He  secured  on  all  sides  large  numbers  for 
Christ,  so  that  on  the  birthday  of  the  Lord,  cele- 
brated by  the  melodious  anthems  of  all  heaven, 
more  than  ten  thousand  of  the  English  were  born 
again  in  the  laver  of  holy  baptism,  with  an  infi- 
nite number  of  women  and  children,  in  a  river 
which  the  English  call  Sirarios,  the  Swale,  as  if  at 
one  birth  of  the  church  from  the  womb.  These 
persons,  at  the  command  of  the  divine  teacher, 
as  if  he  were  an  angel  from  heaven,  calling  upon 
them,  all  entered  the  dangerous  depths  of  the 
river,  two  and  two  together,  as  if  it  had  been  a 
solid  plain;  and  in  true  faith,  confessing  the 
exalted  Trinity,  they  were  baptized  one  by  the 
other  in  turns,  the  apostolic  leader  blessing  the 
water.  *  *  *  So  great  a  prodigy  from  heaven 
born  out  of  the  deep  whirlpool."  (Patrol.  Lat., 
Vol.  LXXX.,  p.  79). 

It  is  also  reported  that  Paulinus,  A.  D.  629, 
baptized  ten  thousand  in  the  same  river.  Cam- 
den says  the  Swale  was  accounted  sacred  by  the 


42  DID   THEY   DIP  ? 

ancient  Saxons,  above  the  ten  thousand  persons, 
besides '  women  and  children,  having  received 
baptism  in  it  in  one  day  from  Paulinus,  Arch- 
bishop of  York,  on  the  first  conversion  of  the 
Saxons  to  Christianity.      (Britannia,  Vol.  III.,  p. 

257). 

Alcuin  says  of  King  Edwin  and  his  Northum- 
brians: 

"Easter  having  come  when  the  king  had  de- 
cided to  be  baptized  with  his  people  under  the 
lofty  walls  of  York,  in  which  by  his  orders,  a 
little  house  was  quickly  erected  for  God,  that 
under  its  roof  he  might  receive  the  sacred  water 
of  baptism.  During  the  sunshine  of  that  festive 
and  holy  day  he  was  dedicated  to  Christ  in  the 
saving  fountain,  with  his  family  and  nobles,  and 
with  the  common  people  following.  York  re- 
mained illustrious,  distinguished  with  great  honor, 
because  in  that  sacred  place  King  Edwin  was 
washed  in  the  water."  (Patrol.  Lat.,  Vol.  CI.,  p. 
818). 

Bede,  referring  to  a  period  shortly  following 
the  baptism  of  the  king,  says: 

"  So  great  was  there  the  fervor  of  the  faith,  as  is 
reported,  and  the  desire  of  the  washing  of  salva- 
tion among  the  nations  of  the  Northumbrians, 
that  Paulinus  at  a  certain  time  coming  with  the 
king  and  queen  to  the  royal  country  seat,  which 
is  called  Adgefrin,  stayed  with  them  thirty-six 
days,  fully  occupied  in  catechising  and  baptizing; 
during  which  days,  from  morning  till  night,  he 
did  nothing  else  but  instruct  the  people,  resorting 
from  villages  and  places,  in  Christ's  saving  word; 


IMMERSION   IN   ENGLAND.  43 

and  when  instructed,  he  washed  them  with  the 
water  of  absolution  in  the  river  Glen,  which  is 
close  by."     (Bede's  Eccl.  Hist.,  B.  II.  c.  xiv.). 

Bede  also  tells  us  of  the  baptism  of  the   Deiri: 

•'  In  that  of  the  Deiri  also,  when  he  [Paulinus] 
was  wont  often  to  be  with  the  king,  he  baptized 
in  the  river  Swale,  which  runs  by  the  village  Cat- 
eract;  for  as  yet  oratories,  or  fonts,  could  not  be 
made  in  the  early  infancy  of  the  church  in  these 
parts."     (B.  II.  c.  xiv.). 

Bede  says  that  a  priest,  A.  D.  628,  by  the  name 
of  Deda  told  him  that  one  of  the  oldest  persons 
had  informed  him,  that  he  himself  had  been  bap- 
tized at  noonday,  by  the  Bishop  Paulinus,  in  the 
presence  of  King  Edwin,  with  a  great  number  of 
people,  in  the  river  Trent,  near  the  city,  which  is 
called  in  the  English  tongue  Tiovulfingacestir. 
(B.  II.  c.xvi.). 

Alcuin  states  that  after  the  death  of  Penda,  Os- 
way  the  king  of  the  Mercians  caused  them  to  be 
washed  in  the  consecrated  river  of  baptism.  (Pa- 
trol. Lat.,  Vol.  CI.,  p.  824). 

The  Venerable  Bede,  A.  D.,  674-735,  gives  this 
testimony : 

"  For  he  truly  who  is  baptized  is  seen  to  descend 
into  the  fountain — he  is  seen  to  be  dipped  into 
the  waters;  but  that  which  makes  the  font  to  re- 
generate him  can  by  no  means  be  seen.  The 
piety  of  the  faithful  alone  perceives  that  a  sinner 
descends  into  the  font,  and  a  cleansed  man  as- 
cends; a  son  of  death  descends,  but  a  son  of  the 
resurrection  ascends;  a  son  of  treachery  descends^ 
but  a  son  of  reconciliation  ascends;  a  son  of  wrath 


44  DID   THEY    DIP? 

descends,  but  a  son  of  compassion  ascends;  a  son 
of  the  devil  descends,  but  a  son  of  God  ascends." 
(In  John  Evan.  Ex.  3:5.  Patrol.  Lat.,  Vol.  XCII., 
pp.  668,  669). 

Alcuin  tells  of  the  baptism  of  Caedwalla,  the 
king  of  the  West  Saxons,  at  Rome.     He  says: 

"  Whilst  the  happy  king  was  deemed  worthy  to 
be  immersed  in  the  whirlpool  of  baptism."  (Patrol. 
Lat.,  Vol.  CI.,  p.  1310). 

The  Council  of  Cealchythe,  held  under  Wul- 
fred,  A.  D.  816,  says: 

**  Let  presbyters  also  know,  that  when  they  ad- 
minister baptism  they  ought  not  to  pour  the  con- 
secrated water  upon  the  infants'  heads,  but  let 
them  always  be  immersed  in  the  font;  as  the  Son 
of  God  himself  afforded  as  example  unto  all 
believers,  when  he  was  three  times  immersed  in 
the  river  Jordan."  (Hart's  Eccl.  Records,  p.  197. 
Cambridge,  1846). 

Collier,  the  English  Church  historian,  says  of 
this  canon: 

"  By  enjoining  the  priests  not  to  sprinkle  the 
infants  in  baptism  shows  the  great  regard  they 
had  for  the  primitive  usage;  that  they  did  not 
look  upon  this  as  a  dangerous  rite,  or  at  all 
impracticable  in  those  northern  climates;  not  that 
they  thought  this  circumstance  essential  to  the 
sacrament,  but  because  it  was  the  general  prac- 
tice of  the  primitive  church,  because  it  was  a 
lively  instructive  emblem  of  the  death,  burial  and 
resurrection  of  our  Saviour;  for  this  reason  they 
preferred  it  to  sprinkling."  (Collier's  Eccl.  Hist., 
Vol.  I.,  p.  354). 


IMMERSION   IN   ENGLAND.  45 

Hastine,  the  Dane,  A.  D.  893,  gave  his  two  sons 
as  hostages  to  Alfred,  king  of  England,  with  the 
understanding  if  "  he  wished  he  might  imbue  them 
with  the  sacraments  of  faith  and  baptism,"  and 
the  boys  soon  afterwards  were  *'  regenerated  in 
the  sacred  font."  (Roger  de  Wendover's  Flowers 
of  History,  p.  228). 

Fridegod,  a  monk  of  Canterbury,  about  A.  D. 
900,  says  in  his  life  of  Wilfred: 

"  He  showed  that  those  to  be  saved  should  be 
immersed  in  the  clear  waters." 

And  elsewhere  he  says: 

"  Common  people  seeking  holy  baptism  are  im- 
mersed." (Patrol.  Lat.,  Vol.  CXXXHI.,  pp.  993, 
1003). 

The  Constitution  of  the  Synod  of  Amesbury, 
977,  was  drawn  up  by  Oswald  and  required: 

"All  children  to  be  baptized  in  nine  days  after 
their  birth." 

Collier  remarks  upon  this  canon: 

"^It  is  plain,  as  will  be  shown  further,  by  and  by, 
that  the  English  Church  used  the  rite  of  immer- 
sion. It  seems  that  they  were  not  at  all  discour- 
aged by  the  coldness  of  the  climate,  nor  thought 
the  primitive  custom  impracticable  in  the  northern 
regions;  and  if  an  infant  could  be  plunged  into 
the  water  at  nine  days  old  without  receiving  any 
harm,  how  unreasonable  must  their  scruples  be 
who  decline  bringing  their  children  to  public  bap- 
tism for  fear  of  danger?  How  unreasonable,  I  say, 
must  this  scruple  be  when  immersion  is  altered  to 
sprinkling?"     (Eccl.  Hist.,  Vol.  L,  p.  474). 


46  DID   THEY   DIP  ? 

William  Malmesbury,  A.  D.  979-1009,  says  of 
the  baptism  of  king  Ethelred: 

**  When  the  little  boy  was  immersed  in  the  font 
of  baptism,  the  bishops  standing  round,  the  sac- 
rament was  marred  by  a  sad  accident  which  made 
St.  Dunstan  utter  an  unfavorable  prophecy." 
(Patrol.  Lat.,  Vol.  CLXXIX.,  p.  1131). 

Roger  Wendover  gives  an  account  of  Sweyn, 
king  of  the  Danes,  and  Anlaf,  king  of  the  Nor- 
wegians, coming  against  London  in  994.  They 
were  repulsed  but  over-ran  the  provinces  so  that 
king  Ethelred  had  to  pay  them  a  bounty.  Wen- 
dover continues: 

"  King  Ethelred  dispatched  at  this  time  Elfege, 
Bishop  of  Winchester,  and  Duke  Athelwold  to 
King  Anlaf,  whom  they  brought  in  peace  to  the 
royal  vill  where  King  Ethelred  was,  and  at  his 
request  dipped  him  in  the  sacred  font,  after  which 
he  was  confirmed  by  the  bishop,  the  king  adopt- 
ing him  as  his  son  and  honoring  him  with  royal 
presents;  and  the  following  summer  he  returned 
to  his  own  country  in  peace."  (Flowers  of  His- 
tory, p.  272). 

Lanfranc,  the  thirty-fourth  archbishop  of  Can- 
terbury, 1005-1089,  was  born  in  Italy  and  came  to 
England  by  way  of  Normandy.  Commenting  on 
Phillipians  iii:20  he  says: 

•'  For  as  Christ  lay  three  days  in  the  sepulcher, 
so  in  baptism  let  there  be  a  trine  immersion." 
(Patrol.  Lat.,  Vol.  CL.,  p.  315). 

Cardinal  Pullus,  1 144,  was  born  in  England, 
became  a  professor  in  Paris,  and  was  highly  hon- 


IMMERSION   IN   ENGLAND.  47 

ored   of  the  Pope.     In  his  book  on  Divinity  he 
says: 

"  Whilst  the  candidate  for  baptism  in  water  is 
immersed,  the  death  of  Christ  is  suggested;  whilst 
immersed  and  covered  with  water,  the  burial  of 
Christ  is  shown  forth;  whilst  he  is  raised  from  the 
waters,  the  resurrection  of  Christ  is  proclaimed. 
The  immersion  is  repeated  three  times,  out  of 
reverence  for  the  Trinity  and  on  account  of  the 
three  days'  burial  of  Christ.  In  the  burial  of  the 
Lord  the  day  follows  the  night  three  times;  in 
baptism  also  trine  emersion  accompanies  immer- 
sion."    (Patrol.  Lat.,  Vol.  CLXXXVL,  p.  843). 

The  Synod  of  Cashel,  A.  D.  11 72,  was  held 
under  Henry  II.: 

"It  was  ordained  that  children  should  be  brought 
to  the  church  and  baptized  in  clear  water,  being 
thrice  dipped  therein,  in  the  name  of  the  Father, 
and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  (Roger 
de  Wendover's  Annals,  p.  352). 

We  have  an  account  of  the  baptism  of  Arthur, 
the  oldest  son  of  Henry  VII.  He  married 
Catherine  of  Aragon,  who  after  his  death  became 
the  wife  of  Henry  VIII.  Leland  says  of  the 
baptism  of  Arthur: 

"The  body  of  all  the  cathedral  church  of 
Westminster  was  hung  with  cloth  of  arras,  and  in 
the  middle,  beside  the  font  of  the  said  church, 
was  ordained  and  prepared  a  solemn  font  in 
manner  and  form  of  a  stage  of  seven  steps, 
square  or  round  like,  an  high  cross  covered  with 
red  worsted,  and  up  in  the  midst  a  post  made  of 
iron  to  bear  the  font  of  silver  gilt,  which  within 


48  DID   THEY   DIP  ? 

side  was  well  dressed  with  fine  linen  cloth,  and 
near  the  same  on  the  west  side  was  a  step, 
like  a  block,  for  the  bishop  to  stand  on, 
covered  also  with  red  saye;  and  over  the  font,  of 
a  good  height,  a  rich  canopy  with  a  great  gilt 
ball,  lined  and  fringed  without  curtains.  On  the 
north  side  was  ordained  a  travers  hung  with  cloth 
of  arras,  and  upon  the  one  side  thereof,  within 
side,  another  travers  of  red  scarsnet.  There  was 
fire  without  fumigations,  ready  against  the 
prince's  coming.  And  without,  the  steps  of  the 
said  font  were  railed  with  good  timber.  *  *  * 
And  Queen  Elizabeth  was  in  the  church  abiding 
the  coming  of  the  prince.  *  *  *  Incontinent 
after  the  prince  was  put  into  the  font  the  officers- 
at-large  put  on  their  coats,  and  all  their  torches 
were  lighted."  (Lelandi  Collectanea,  Vol.  IV.,  pp. 
204-206.  London,  1774)- 

Leland  also  gives  a  description  at  great  length 
of  the  baptism  of  Margaret,  the  sister  of  Arthur, 
1490,  and  of  Queen  Elizabeth,  1533.  The  royalty 
were  all  immersed. 

Walker  says  of  baptism  during  the  reign  of 
Edward  VI.,  I537-I553- 

"  Dipping  was  at  this  time  the  more  usual,  but 
sprinkling  was  sometimes  used."  (Doctrine  of 
Baptism,  Ch.  X.,  p.  147.  London,  1678). 

The  prayer  book  of  Edward  VI.  provides: 

"Then  the  priest  shall  take  the  childe  in  his 
handes  and  aske  the  name;  and  namyng  the 
childe,  shall  dyppe  it  in  the  water  thrice.  Fyrst 
dypping  the  right  syde;  second,  the  left  syde;  the 
thirde  time  dypping  the  face  toward  the  font;  so 


IMMERSION   IN   ENGLAND.  49 

it  be  wisely  and  discretely  done;  saying,  I  baptize, 
&c.  And  if  the  childe  be  weake,  it  shall  suffice 
to  pour  upon  it,  saying  the  foresade  wordes." 
(Collier's  Eccl.  Hist.,  Vol.  II.,  p.  256). 

The  Sarum  or  Saulsbury  Liturgy,  1541,  accord- 
ing to  Collier,  provides: 

"Upon  Saturday,  Easter-even,  is  hallowed  the 
font,  which  as  it  were  vestigumi,  or  a  remem- 
brance of  baptism,  that  was  used  in  the  primitive 
church;  at  which  time,  and  Pentecost,  there  was 
used  in  the  church  two  solemn  baptizings,  and 
much  concourse  of  people  came  into  the  same. 

"The  first  was  at  Easter,  because  the  mystery  of 
baptism  agrees  well  to  the  time.  For  like  as 
Christ  died  and  was  buried,  and  rose  again  the 
third  day,  so  by  putting  into  the  water  is  signi- 
fied our  death  to  sin,  and  the  immersion  betokens 
our  burial  and  mortification  to  the  same;  and  the 
rising  again  out  of  the  water  declares  us  to  be 
risen  to  a  new  life,  according  to  the  doctrine  of 
St.  Paul.     (Rom.  vi.) 

"  And  the  second  solemn  baptizing,  i.  e.,  at 
Pentecost,  was  because  there  is  celebrated  the 
feast  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  which  is  the  worker  of 
that  spiritual  regeneration  we  have  in  baptism. 
And  therefore  the  churches  used  to  hallow  the 
font  also  at  that  time."  (Eccl.  Hist.,  Vol.  II.,  p. 
196). 

We  select  a  part  of  the  ceremony  omitting  the 
explanations: 

"  Then  follow  the  questions  to  the  godfathers 
and  godmothers,  as  representatives  of  the  child. 
Forsakest  thou  the  devil?     A71S.     I  forsake  him. 


50  DID    THEY   DIP  ? 

All  his  works?  Ans.  I  forsake  them.  And  all  his 
pomps  and  vanities?  Ans.  I  forsake  them.  Satis- 
fied with  these,  the  minister  then  annoints  the 
child  with  holy  oil  upon  breast  and  betwixt  the 
shoulders.  Questions  to  ascertain  the  orthodoxy 
of  the  child  are  propounded.  Then  follows 
another  series:  For  example,  to  the  child  the 
minister  says:  What  asketh  thou?  Ans.  Baptism. 
Wilt  thou  be  baptized?  Ans.  I  will.  Satisfied 
with  these  replies  the  minister  calling  the  child 
by  name,  baptizes  it  in  the  name  of  the  Father, 
Son  and  Holy  Ghost  (putting  it  into  the  water  of 
the  font  and  taking  it  out  again,  or  else  pouring 
water  upon  it.)"  (Eccl.  Hist.,  Vol.  H.,  pp.  192,  193. 
Note  A.). 

In  1553  instructions  were  given  to  the  arch- 
deacons as  follows: 

"Whether  there  be  any  who  will  not  suffer  the 
priest  to  dip  the  child  three  times  in  the  font, 
being  yet  strong  and  able  to  abide  and  suffer  it  in 
the  judgment  and  opinion  of  discreet  and  expert 
persons,  but  will  needs  have  the  child  in  the 
clothes,  and  only  be  sprinkled  with  a  few  drops  of 
water."     (Hart's  Eccl.  Records,  p.  87). 

Watson,  Bishop  of  Lincoln,  1558,  says: 

*' Though  the  old  and  ancient  tradition  of  the 
Church  hath  from  the  beginning  to  dip  the  child 
three  times,  etc.,  yet  that  is  not  such  necessity; 
but  if  he  be  once  dipped  in  the  water,  it  is  suffi- 
cient. Yea,  and  in  times  of  great  peril  and  neces- 
sity, if  the  water  be  poured  on  his  head,  it  will 
suffice."  (Holsome  and  Catholyke  Doctryne 
Concernynge  the  Seven-Sacraments,  pp.  22,  23. 
London,  1558). 


IMMERSION   IN   ENGLAND.  51 

The  baptism  of  James  I.,  King  of  England  was 
by  immersion.  He  was  born  in  the  Castle  of 
Edinburgh,  1556.     Of  his  baptism  it  is  said: 

"At  convenient  time  you  are  to  present  her  the 
font  of  gold,  which  we  send  with  you.  You  may 
pleasantly  say  that  it  was  made  as  soon  as  we 
heard  of  the  prince's  birth,  and  then  it  was  big 
enough  for  him;  but  now  he  being  grown,  he  is 
too  big  for  it.  Therefore  it  may  be  better  used 
for  the  next  child,  provided  it  be  christened  be- 
fore it  outgrow  the  font."  (Turner,  Vol.  IV.,  p. 
86,  note). 

James  refers  to  "  the  font  wherein  I  was  chris- 
tened."    (Works,  London,  1616). 

Bishop  Horn,  of  England,  in  writing  to  Henry 
BuUinger,  of  Zurich,  in  1575,  says  of  baptism  in 
England: 

'*  The  minister  examines  them  concerning  their 
faith,  and  afterwards  dips  the  infant  in  the  water." 
(Zurich  Letters,  Second  Series,  Parker  Society, 

p.  356). 

The  Greek  lexicons  used  in  England  in  the 
first  half  of  the  seventeenth  century  were  Scapula, 
Stephens,  Mincaeus,  Pasor  and  Leigh.  These  all 
define  baptizo  as  dipping  or  submerging. 

Dr.  Joseph  Mede,  1 586-1638,  was  a  very  learned 
English  divine.     He  says: 

"There  was  no  such  thing  as  sprinkling  or 
rantism  used  in  baptism  in  the  Apostles'  days,  nor 
many  ages  after  them."     (Diatribe  on  Titus  iii.2). 

Henry  Greenwood  in  1628  published  "  A  loy- 
fvl  Tractate  of  the  most  blessed  Baptisme  that 
euer  was  solemnized."      It  is    printed    in  black 


52  DID   THEY   DIP  ? 

letter.  When  I  first  read  it  I  was  led  to  think 
that  it  was  by  an  Anabaptist  preacher,  but  after 
further  examination  I  found  that  he  was  of  the 
Episcopal  Church.  He  says  of  the  baptism  of 
Jesus  : 

"  The  place  where  he  baptized  Christ  was  in  the 
Riuer  Jordan.  *  *  *  A  duplicate  Riuer,  so-called, 
because  it  was  composed  of  two  Fountaines,  the  one 
called  lor,  the  other  Dan,  and  therefore  the  river 
hath  this  name  Jordan:  In  which  Riuer  Naaman 
was  washed  and  cleansed  from  his  Leprosie,  2 
Kings,  5.14;  which  Riuer  Eliah  and  Elisha  diuided 
with  their  cloake,  2  Kings,  28.13.  In  this  lordan 
did  lohn  baptize  our  Lord  and  Sauiour  lesvs 
Christ."     (Pp.  7,  8.) 

Daniel  Rogers,  1633,  published  A  Treatise  of  the 
two  Sacraments  of  the  Gospell  Baptisme  and  the 
Supper  of  the  Lord.  He  was  an  Episcopalian. 
He  says: 

**  Touching  what  I  have  said  of  Sacramentall 
dipping  to  explaine  myself  a  little  about  it;  I 
would  not  be  understood  as  if  scismatically  I 
would  instill  a  distaste  of  the  Church  into  any 
weake  minds,  by  the  act  of  sprinkling  water 
onely.  But  this  (under  correction)  I  say:  That 
it  ought  to  be  the  churches  part  to  cleave  to  the 
Institution,  especially  it  being  not  left  arbitrary 
by  our  Church  to  the  discression  of  the  minister, 
but  required  to  dip  or  dive  the  Infant  more  or 
lesse  (except  in  cases  of  weaknesse),  for  which 
allowance  in  the  church  we  have  cause  to  be 
thankfull;  and  sutably  to  consider  that  he  betrayes 
the  Church  (whose  officer  hee  is)  to  a  disordered 


IMMERSION   IN   ENGLAND.  53 

errour,  if  hee  cleaves  not  to  the  institution;  To 
dippe  the  infant  in  water.  And  this  I  do  so  averre, 
as  thinking  it  exceeding  materiall  to  the  ordi- 
nance, and  no  slight  thing:  yea,  which  both  An- 
tiquity (though  with  some  addition  of  a  threefold 
dipping:  for  the  preserving  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
impugned  Trinity  entire)  constantly  and  without 
exception  of  countries  hot  or  cold,  witnesseth 
unto:  and  especially  the  constant  word  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  first  and  last,  approveth:  as  a  learned 
Cretique  upon  Matthew,  chap.  3,  verse  11,  hath 
noted,  that  the  Greeke  tongue  wants  not  words  to 
expresse  any  other  act  as  well  as  dipping,  if  the 
institution  could  beare  it."    (P.  'j'j.    London,  1633). 

It  is  a  very  significant  fact  that  Daniel  Rogers 
was  quoted  by  the  Baptists  of  164 1  as  having  up- 
held their  opinion.  This  could  not  have  been  if 
the  Baptists  of  that  period  had  been  in  the  prac- 
tice of  sprinkling. 

Stephen  Denson,  1634,  says: 

"  Bee  Baptized.  The  word  translated  baptizing 
doth  most  properly  signifie  dipping  over  head  and 
eares,  and  indeed  this  was  the  most  usual  manner 
of  baptizing  in  the  primitive  Church:  especially 
in  hotte  countries,  and  after  this  manner  was 
Christ  himselfe  baptized  by  Joh.  Mat.  3.16.  For 
there  is  sayd  of  him,  that  when  hee  was  baptized  hee 
went  out  of  the  water;  Which  doth  imply  that  in  his 
baptizing  hee  went  under  the  water,  and  thus  all 
those  that  were  baptized  in  rivers  they  were  not 
sprinkled  but  dipped."  (The  Doctrine  of  Both 
Sacraments,  pp.  39,  40.  London,  1634). 

Edward  Elton,  1637,  says: 


54  DID   THEY   DIP  ? 

"  First,  in  signe  and  sacrament  only,  for  the  dip- 
ping of  the  party  baptized  in  the  water,  and  abid- 
ing under  the  water  for  a  time,  doth  represent 
and  seale  unto  us  the  buriall  of  Christ,  and  his 
abiding  in  the  grave;  and  of  this  all  are  partakers 
sacramentally."  (An  Exposition  of  the  Epistle 
of  Saint  Paul  to  the  Colossians,  p.  293.  London, 
1637)- 

John  Selden,  1 584-1654,  was  regarded  as  the 
most  learned  Englishman  of  his  time.     He  says: 

"  The  Jews  took  the  baptism  wherein  the  whole 
body  was  not  baptized  to  be  void."  (De  Jure  Nat., 
c.  2). 

Bishop  Taylor,  161 3-1677  says: 

"  If  you  would  attend  to  the  proper  signification 
of  the  word,  baptism  signifies  plunging  into  water, 
or  dipping  with  washing."  (Rule  of  Conscience, 
I.,  3»  c.  4). 

The  Rev.  Thomas  Blake,  who  lived  in  Tam- 
worth,  Staffordshire,  A.  D.  1644,  says: 

**  I  have  been  an  eye  witness  of  many  infants 
dipped,  and  I  know  it  to  have  been  the  constant 
practice  of  many  ministers  in  their  places  for 
many  years  together."  (The  Birth  Privilige,  p. 
33.    London,  1644). 

Alexander  Balfour  says: 

"  Baptizing  infants  by  dipping  them  in  fonts 
was  practiced  in  the  Church  of  England  (except 
in  cases  of  sickness  or  weakness)  until  the  Direc- 
tory came  out  in  the  year  1644,  which  forbade  the 
carrying  of  children  to  the  font."  (Anti-Paedo- 
Baptism  Unveiled,  p.  240.    London,  1827). 


IMMERSION    IN   ENGLAND.  55 

Wall  is  even  more  definite.  He  says  of  the 
Westminster  Assembly  of  Divines: 

"So  (parallel  to  the  rest  of  their  reformations) 
they  reformed  the  font  into  a  basin.  This  learned 
Assembly  could  not  remember  that  fonts  to  bap- 
tize in  had  been  always  used  by  the  primitive 
Christians,  long  before  the  beginning  of  popery, 
and  ever  since  churches  were  built;  but  that 
sprinkling  as  the  common  use  of  baptizing  was 
really  introduced  (in  France  first,  and  then  in 
other  popish  countries)  in  times  of  popery." 
(Hist.  Inft.  Bapt.,  Vol.  H.,  p.  403).  And  in  an- 
other place  he  remarks:  "And  for  sprinkling, 
properly  called,  it  seems  that  it  was  at  1645  J^^^ 
then  beginning,  and  used  by  very  few.  It  must 
have  begun  in  the  disorderly  times  of  1641."  (Hist. 
Inft.  Bapt.,  Vol.  II.,  p.  403)- 

Sir  John  Floyer,  one  of  the  most  careful 
writers,  says: 

*'  I  have  now  given  what  testimony  I  could  find 
in  our  English  authors,  to  prove  the  practice  of 
immersion  from  the  time  the  Britons  and  Saxons 
were  baptized  till  King  James'  days;  when  the 
people  grew  peevish  with  all  ancient  ceremonies 
•and  through  the  love  of  novelty  and  the  niceness 
of  parents,  and  the  pretense  of  modesty,  they  laid 
aside  immersion,  which  never  was  abrogated  by 
any  canon,  but  is  still  recommended  by  the  pres- 
ent rubric  of  our  church,  which  orders  the  child  to 
be  dipped  discreetly  and  warily."  (History  of 
Cold  Bathing,  p.  61). 

But  dipping  was  not  then  left  off,  for  Floyer 
further  says: 


56  DID   THEY   DIP  ? 

"  That  I  may  further  convince  all  of  my  country- 
men that  Immersion  in  Baptism  was  very  lately  left 
off  in  E7igla?id,  I  will  assure  them  that  there  are 
yet  Persons  living  who  were  so  immersed ;  for  I 
am  so  informed  by  Mr.  Berisford,  minister  of  Stut- 
ton  in  Derbyshire,  that  his  parents  Immersed  not 
only  him  but  the  rest  of  his  family  at  his  Baptism!' 
(P.  182.  London,  1722). 

Walter  Craddock  preached  a  sermon  before  the 
House  of  Commons  at  St.  Margaret's,  July  21, 
1646.     Among  other  things  he  said: 

"  There  is  now  among  good  people  a  great  deal 
of  strife  about  baptism;  as  for  divers  things,  so 
for  the  point  of  dipping,  though  in  some  places 
in  England  they  dip  altogether."    (P.  100). 

From  the  testimony  introduced  above  we  reach 
the  conclusion  from  the  introduction  of  Chris- 
tianity in  Britain  to  1650  immersion  was  common 
in  England,  and  was  the  prevailing  practice 
among  all  Christian  denominations.  It  is  mani- 
fest that  dipping  was  the  prescribed  order  of 

1.  The  Catholics.  The  Catholic  ritual  in  use 
in  England  in  1641  was  not  opposed  to  immersion. 
In  fact,  the  Roman  Church  never  has  been  opposed 
to  immersion. 

2.  The  Episcopalians.  The  Episcopal  prayer 
book  and  ritual  prescribed  immersion  as  the 
ordinary  act  of  baptism  then  as  now.  But 
there  was  the  difference  that  immersion  was  often 
administered  in  the  Episcopal  Church  of  that  day, 
as  is  not  the  case  now. 

3.  The  Presbyterians.  We  have  already  seen 
that  sprinkling,  or  rather  pouring,  was  introduced 


IMMERSION   IN    ENGLAND.  57 

in  Scotland  by  John  Knox  and  his  followers  from 
Calvin.  But  it  did  not  prevail  in  England  among 
Presbyterians  until  the  Westminster  Assembly 
excluded  immersion  by  a  vote  of  25  to  24,  Dr. 
Lightfoot,  the  president,  casting  the  deciding 
vote.  This  was  only  done  after  the  most  heated 
debate.  Dr.  Lightfoot  himself  gives  this  ac- 
count: 

Then  we  fell  upon  the  work  of  the  day,  which  was 
about  baptizing  "of  the  child,  whether  to  dip  him  or  to 
sprinkle."  And  this  proposition,  "  It  is  lawful  and  sufficient 
to  besprinkle  the  child,"  had  been  canvassed  before  our 
adjourning,  and  was  ready  now  to  vote;  but  I  spake  against 
it,  as  being  very  unfit  to  vote;  that  it  is  lawful  to  sprinkle 
when  every  one  grants  it.  Whereupon  it  was  fallen  upon, 
sprinkling  being  granted,  whether  dipping  should  be 
tolerated  with  it.  And  here  fell  we  upon  a  large  and  long 
discourse,  whether  dipping  were  essential,  or  used  in  the 
first  institution,  or  in  the  Jews'  custom.  Mr.  Coleman  went 
about,  in  a  large  discourse,  to  prove  tbilh  to  be  dipping 
overhead.  Which  I  answered  at  large.  After  a  long  dis- 
pute it  was  at  last  put  to  the  question,  whether  the 
Directory  should  run  thus,  "The  minister  shall  take  water, 
and  sprinkle  or  pour  it  with  his  hand  upon  the  face  or  fore- 
head of  the  child;"  and  it  was  voted  so  indifferently,  that  we 
were  glad  to  count  names  twice;  for  so  many  were  so  un- 
willing to  have  dipping  excluded  that  the  votes  came  to  an 
equality  within  one;  for  the  one  side  were  24,  the  other  25, 
the  24  for  the  reserving  of  dipping  and  the  25  against  it; 
and  there  grew  a  great  heat  upon  it,  and  when  we  had  done 
all,  we  concluded  upon  nothing  in  it,  but  the  business  was 
recommitted. 

Aug.  8th.  But  as  to  the  dispute  itself  about  dipping,  it 
was  thought  safe  and  most  fit  to  let  it  alone,  and  to  express 
it  thus  m  our  Directory:  "  He  is  to  baptize  the  child  with 
water,  which,  for  the  manner  of  doing  is  not  only  lawful,  but 
also  sufficient,  and  most  expedient  to  be  by  pouring  or 
sprinkling  of  water  on  the  face  of  the  child,  witl^out  any 
other  ceremony."  But  this  lost  a  great  deal  of  time  about 
the  wording  of  it.    (Works,  Vol.  XIIL,  p.  299.  London  1824). 

Sir  David  Brewster  is  regarded  as  high  author- 
ity. He  says:  "  In  the  Assembly  of  Divines, 
held  at   Westminster  in  1643,   it  was  keenly   de- 


58  DID   THEY    DIP  ? 

bated  whether  immersion  or  sprinkling  should  be 
adopted:  25  voted  for  sprinkling,  and  24  for  im- 
mersion; and  even  that  small  majority  was 
obtained  at  the  earnest  request  of  Dr.  Lightfoot, 
who  had  acquired  great  influence  in  that  assem- 
bly."    (Edinburgh  Ency.,  Vol.  III.,  p.  236). 

All  this  took  place  three  years  after  the  alleged 
*'  invention  "  of  immersion  by  the  Baptists. 

4.  The  Baptists.  In  this  connection  I  only 
wish  to  say  that  if  the  Baptists  between  1509  and 
1641,  in  England,  were  not  in  the  practice  of  im- 
mersion, they  hold  the  world's  record  for  dissent. 
Here  are  all  denominations  who  recognize  and 
practice  immersion  and  the  Baptists  alone  stand- 
ing out  against  them  all.  As  soon  as  the  other 
denominations  adopt  sprinkling  as  their  custom, 
all  of  a  sudden,  the  Baptists  changetheir  practice 
from  sprinkling  to  immersion.  There  is  no  reason 
for  all  of  this.  For  my  part  I  do  not  believe  any 
such  charge,  and,  I  think,  the  following  pages  will 
demonstrate,  that  they  did  no  such  thing. 


THE   ANABAPTISTS   OF   THE   CONTINENT.  59- 


CHAPTER   IV. 

THE    ANABAPTISTS    OF   THE    CONTINENT. 

Dr.  Whitsitt  makes  the  broadest  claims  that 
all  of  the  Anabaptists  of  Germany  and  Holland 
practiced  sprinkling.     His  words  are: 

"  But  none  of  the  Anabaptists  of  Holland, 
or  of  the  adjacent  sections  of  Germany,  were 
immersionists.  So  far  as  any  account  of  them 
has  come  to  light,  they  were  uniformly  in  the 
practice  of  pouring  or  sprinkling  for  baptism, 
excepting  the  CoUegiants,  who,  at  Rhynsburg, 
began  to  immerse  in  1620."     (Page  35). 

Again: 

"  The  Anabaptists  of  Holland  appear  to  have 
been,  without  exception,  engaged  in  the  practice 
of  pouring  and  sprinkling."     (Page  42). 

Here  is  the  affirmation  of  a  universal  negative, 
which  would  require  omniscience  to  prove.  He 
would  be  compelled  to  know  every  circumstance 
of  every  baptism  which  took  place  among  many 
thousands  of  persons  scattered  over  many  coun- 
tries for  more  than  one  hundred  years.  If  just 
one  Anabaptist  was  immersed,  his  thesis  falls 
to  the  ground.  Beyond  the  impossibility  of  sus- 
taining such  a  position,  two  considerations  will 
answer  all  that  Dr.  Whitsitt  has  said  in  regard 
to  the  Anabaptists  of  Holland  and  Germany  prac- 
ticing sprinkling: 

I.  All  who  were  called  Anabaptists  were  not 
Anabaptists.     It  was  a  general   name  for  many 


■60  DID  THEY    DIP  ? 

classes  of  people,  and  the  true  Anabaptists  had 
to  suffer  much  for  the  sins  of  others.  Many  who 
went  under  this  name  were  Lutherans  and  other 
Pedobaptists,  who  had  embraced  certain  fanatical 
opinions,  and  were  denounced  as  Anabaptists. 
In  reality  they  never  embraced  the  Anabaptist 
faith  at  all.     Fiislin  very  properly  remarks: 

"  There  was  a  great  difference  between  Ana- 
baptists and  Anabaptists.  There  were  those 
among  them  who  held  strange  doctrines;  but 
this  cannot  be  said  of  the  whole  sect.  If  we 
should  attribute  to  every  sect  whatever  senseless 
doctrines  two  or  three  fanciful  fellows  have  taught, 
there  is  not  one  in  the  world  to  which  we  could  not 
ascribe  the  most  abominable  errors."  (Beytrage, 
Vol.  II). 

It  is  certain,  that  many  persons  who  were 
called  Anabaptists  were  never  such  in  reality; 
and  it  is  also  certain  that  many  such  practiced 
sprinkling. 

2.  It  must  be  remembered  that  this  was  a  time 
of  revolution.  Men  were  constantly  changing 
their  minds.  The  opinion  of  a  man  yesterday 
would  not  be  the  opinion  of  the  same  man  to-day. 
On  no  point  was  this  more  true  than  on  the  sub- 
ject of  baptism.  The  ranks  of  the  Anabaptists 
were  constantly  augmented  from  the  ranks  of  the 
Catholic  and  Reformed  Churches.  The  investi- 
gation of  the  word  of  God  was  a  new  thing,  and 
some  arrived  at  the  truth  slowly.  This  was  emi- 
nently true  of  the  act  of  baptism.  Men  came  out 
of  the  Reformed  Churches  and  for  a  time  held  on 
to  sprinkling  and  pouring,  and  they  were  termed 


THE   ANABAPTISTS   OF   THE   CONTINENT.  61 

Anabaptists,  but  this  was  not  Anabaptist  doctrine, 
any  more  than  it  is  Baptist  doctrine  to-day.  This 
may  be  illustrated  by  Grebel,  one  of  the  most 
noted  Anabaptist  preachers  of  his  day.  It  is  said 
of  Mantz,  to  whom  Dr.  Whitsitt  refers  that  **he 
fell  upon  his  knees,  and  Grebel  baptized  him.'^ 
(Cornelius,  Geschichte  des  Miinsterischen  Auf- 
rouhrs,  Leipsig,  i860.  Vol.  II.,  s.  26,  27).  And  yet 
shortly  after  that  Grebel  became  a  full  Anabaptist 
and  only  practiced  immersion.  This  will  explain 
some  apparent  cases  where  sprinkling  seemed  to 
be  practiced  among  the  Anabaptists.  The  normal 
mode  of  baptism  among  the  early  Anabaptists 
was  immersion,  and  I  shall  point  out  an  abundance 
of  testimony  to  confirm  this  proposition. 

Dr.  Henry  S.  Burrage,  very  beautifully  says  on 
this  point: 

"The  Bible  was  read,  its  divine  lessons  were 
earnestly  and  tenderly  unfolded,  and  sinners  were 
urged  to  flee  from  the  wrath  to  come.  It  was  a 
new  gospel  to  thousands,  and  multitudes  with 
tears  of  repentance  asked  the  privilege  of  con- 
fessing faith  in  Christ,  retiring  to  some  mountain 
stream  to  exclaim  with  the  Eunuch,  '  See  here  is 
water;  what  doth  hinder  me  to  be  baptized?  '  The 
solemn  ordinance  was  administered,  and  coming 
forth  from  the  water  both  the  convert  and  the 
bearer  of  the  glad  tidings  *  went  on  their  way 
rejoicing.'"  (The  Anabaptists  of  Switzerland,  p. 
108.  Philadelphia,  1882). 

We  are  not  at  all  shut  up  to  a  negative  view  of 
this  question.  Fortunately  we  have  much  posi- 
tive evidence  that  the  Anabaptists  did  practice 


^62  DID   THEY   DIP  ? 

dipping.  Luther  was  a  firm  believer  in  dipping, 
and  understood  the  Anabaptists  to  be  dippers. 
Indeed  some  charge  that  the  Anabaptists  took 
the  cue  for  their  immersions  from  Luther  him- 
self.    Robinson  says: 

"Luther  bore  the  Zuinglians  dogmatizing;  but 
he  could  not  brook  a  further  reformation  in  the 
hands  of  the  dippers.  What  renders  the  great 
man's  conduct  the  more  surprising  is,  that  he  had 
himself,  seven  years  before,  taught  the  doctrine  of 
dipping.  *  *  *  The  Catholics  tax  Luther  as  be- 
ing the  father  of  the  German  dippers,  some  of  the 
first  expressly  declare,  they  received  their  first 
ideas  from  him,  and  the  fact  seems  undeniable, 
but  the  article  of  reforming  without  him  he  could 
not  bear.  This  is  the  crime  objected  against  them, 
as  it  had  been  against  Carolostadt.  This  exasper- 
ated him  to  the  last  degree,  and  he  became  their 
enemy,  and  notwithstanding  all  he  had  said  in 
favor  of  dipping,  persecuted  them  under  the  title 
of  re-dippers,  re-baptizers,  or  Anabaptists.  It  is 
not  an  improbable  conjecture,  that  Luther  at  first 
conformed  to  his  own  principles,  and  dipped 
infants  in  baptism."  (Ecclesiastical  Researches, 
pp.  542,  543.  Cambridge,  1792). 

The  translator  of  Luther's  Controversial  Works, 
speaking  of  Luther's  sermon  on  baptism  says: 
"The  sermon  and  letters  are  directed  principally 
against  the  Anabaptists,  a  fanatical  sect  of  re- 
formers who  contended  that  baptism  should  be 
administered  to  adults  only,  not  by  sprinkling, 
but  by  dipping." 

Zuingle,  1527,  entitles  his  great  work  against 


THE   ANABAPTISTS   OF   THE    CONTINENT.  63 

the  Anabaptists,  Elenchus  contra  Catabaptistas. 
(Zuinglii  Operum,  Vol.  II.,  pp.  1-42.  Ed.  1580).  He 
gives  an  early  Confession  of  Faith  of  the  Ana- 
baptists. He  upbraids  his  opponents  as  having 
published  these  articles,  but  declares  that  there 
is  scarcely  any  one  of  them  that  has  not  a  written 
copy  of  these  laws  which  have  been  so  well  con- 
cealed. The  articles  are  in  all  seven.  In  reality 
it  is  the  Schleitham  Confession  of  Faith.  The 
first,  which  we  give  in  full,  relates  to  baptism: 

"  Baptism  ought  to  be  given  to  all  who  have 
been  taught  repentance  and  change  of  life,  and 
who  in  truth  believe  that  through  Christ  their  sins 
are  blotted  out,  and  the  sins  of  all  who  are  will- 
ing to  walk  in  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ, 
and  who  are  willing  to  be  buried  with  him  into 
death,  that  they  may  rise  again  with  him.  To  all, 
therefore,  who  in  this  manner  seek  baptism,  and 
of  themselves  ask  us,  we  will  give  it.  By  this 
rule  are  excluded  all  baptism  of  infants,  the  great 
abomination  of  the  Roman  pontiff.  For  this 
article  we  have  the  strength  and  testimony  of 
Scripture  ;  we  have  also  the  practice  of  the 
apostles;  which  things  we  simply  and  also  stead- 
fastly will  observe,  for  we  are  assured  of  them." 

Zuingle  makes  all  manner  of  fun  of  the  Ana- 
baptists, calling  them  "  immersionists,  dying 
people,  re-dying  them,  plunging  them  into  the 
darkness  of  water  to  unite  them  to  a  church  of 
darkness,  they  mersed,"  etc. 

In  1525  Zuingle  calls  the  Anabaptists  "  bath  (I 
should  have  said)  Baptist,  companions."  (Zuin- 
gle's  Works,  Vol.  II.,  s.  240). 


64  DID   THEY   DIP  ? 

It  will  be  seen  from  the  above  that  not  only- 
does  Zuingle  declare  the  Anabaptists  to  be  dip- 
pers, but  he  calls  them  Catabaptists.  This  term 
will  be  found  in  many  places  in  this  book,  and  so 
I  wish  to  have  a  definition  of  the  term.  My  first 
witness  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  word  Catabap- 
tist  shall  be  Dr.  Whitsitt.  When  Dr.  Whitsitt  is 
writing  under  constraint  and  trying  to  establish  a 
case,  Catabaptist  means  "  against  baptism,"  but 
when  he  was  writing  without  constraint  the  word 
meant  "  a  dipper." 

Dr.  Whitsitt  in  The  Dr.  Whitsitt  in  his 
hidependent,  1880:  book,  1896: 

The    ceremony    referred  It  used  to  be  said  that  the 

to  was  anabaptism,  rebap-  word  Kata  baptist,  so  often 
tism  by  sprinkhng,  and  not  applied  to  Anabaptists  by 
"catabaptism,"  or  baptism  their  opponents  during  the 
by  immersion.  Reformation     period,     con- 

tained indisputable  proof 
that  they  were  immersion- 
ists.  The  preposition  katay 
in  its  primary  or  local  usage, 
means  down,  and  so,  it  was 
argued,  Katabaptist  must 
have  been  one  who  baptized 
downwards,  that  is,  im- 
mersed. But  just  as  ana, 
meaning  primarily  ?<:/,  came 
to  be  used  in  the  sense  of 
again,  so  kata,  in  several 
technical  terms,  means 
against. 

Which  statement  of  Dr.  Whitsitt  shall  we  be- 
lieve? The  first  of  course,  for  that  is  in  accord 
with  all  scholarship.  Liddell  and  Scott,  the 
great  Greek  lexicographers,  in  their  seventh  edi- 
tion, say: 

Katabaptizo,  to  dip  under  water,  to  drown. 

Katabaptistas,  one  who  drowns. 


THE   ANABAPTISTS   OF   THE   CONTINENT.  65 

Dr.  K.  R.  Hagenbach  says  of  the  Anabaptists: 
"  '  Since,'  says  Bullinger,  *  kindness  was  of  no 
avail  with  them,  they  were  put  into  the  high  tower 
in  the  lower  town,  the  one  called  the  Witches'  or 
New  Tower.  There  were  fourteen  men  and  seven 
women  of  them.  There  they  were  fed  on  bread 
and  water,  to  see  whether  it  was  possible  to  turn 
them  from  their  error.'  The  threat  of  drowning 
was  even  administered  in  barbarous  irony,  for  *he 
who  dips,'  it  was  declared,  'shall  himself  be 
dipped.'"  (History  of  the  Reformation  in  Ger- 
many and  Switzerland,  Vol.    II.,  p.  33). 

That  the  Anabaptists,  or  Mennonites,  of  Hol- 
land immersed  we  have  many  proofs.  One  of  Dr. 
Whitsitt's  principal  witnesses  is  Baillie,  and  I 
show,  in  the  chapter  on  English  Baptists,  that  he 
admits  that  the  Mennonites  were  dippers.  Another 
one  of  Dr.  Whitsitt's  witnesses  is  Robinson.  He 
is  clear  enough  on  this  point.     Robinson  says: 

"  Menno,  the  father  of  the  Dutch  Baptists,  says, 
'  after  we  have  searched  ever  so  diligently,  we 
shall  find  no  other  baptism  beside  dipping  in 
water  {doopsel  inder  water)  which  is  acceptable  to 
God  and  maintained  in  his  word.'  (Mennonis 
Simonis,  Opera,  J539»page  24).  Menno  was  dipped 
himself,  and  he  baptized  others  by  dipping;  but 
some  of  his  followers  introduced  pouring,  as  they 
imagined  through  necessity,  in  prison,  and  now 
the  practice  generally  prevails."  (History  of 
Baptism,  pp.  694,  695.  Nashville,   i860). 

I  now  introduce   an  authoritative  witness.      It 
is  Gerard  Brandt,   the    brilliant   historian  of  the 
5 


66  DID   THEY   DIP  ? 

Low   Countries.     This  work  was  first   published 
in  1671.     He  says: 

"The  Reformation  exclusive  of  Infant-baptism, 
was  set  on  foot  in  Switzerland  about  the  year 
1522,  by  the  zeal  of  Conrad  Grebel  and  Felix 
Mans,  both  men  of  learning,  who  fell  out  with 
Zuinglius,  about  the  said  opinion.  Upon  account 
of  this  difference  was  the  first  Edict  against  Ana- 
baptists published  at  Zurich;  in  which  there  was  a 
Penalty  of  a  Silver  Park  (or  two  Guilders,  Dutch 
money)  set  upon  all  such  as  should  suffer  them- 
selves to  be  Re-baptized,  or  should  withhold  Bap- 
tism from  their  Children.  And  it  was  further  de- 
clared, That  those  who  openly  opposed  this  Order, 
should  be  yet  more  severely  treated.  Accord- 
ingly the  said  Felix  was  drowned  in  Zurich  upon 
the  sentence  pronounced  by  Zuinglius,  in  these 
four  words:  *Qui  iterum  mergit,  mergatur;  that 
is,  he  that  rebaptizes  with  water,  let  him  be 
drowned  in  the  water.  This  happened  in  the  year 
1526;  but  about  the  same  time,  and  since,  there 
were  more  of  them  put  to  death:  A  procedure 
which  appeared  very  strange  to  some:  The  Zuin- 
glians,  they  said,  were  scarce  got  out  of  the  reach 
of  Persecution  themselves,  and  saw  those  fires  in 
which  their  fellow-believers  were  burnt,  still  daily 
smooking  most  of  them  condemned  the  putting 
hereticks  to  death,  where  it  came  home  to  them- 
selves, where  they  were  uppermost.  Thus  doing 
to  others  what  they  would  not  have  done  to  them. 
Others  abused  fire,  they  water.  Those  who  knew 
better  things  ought  to  have  done  better.    Neither 

*Those  who  immerse  again,  shall  be  immersed. 


THE   ANABAPTISTS   OF    THE    CONTINENT.  67 

were  they  acted  by  a  good  spirit,  they  could  lead 
the  Wanaerer  into  the  ditch,  instead  of  setting 
him  in  the  right  way;  they  could  drown  the  in- 
fected instead  of  washing  and  cleansing  him;  or 
burn  the  Blind  instead  of  restoring  him  to  the 
light. 

•*  The  first  Anabaptists  so  far  as  I  can  gather  from 
their  own  Writings,  that  were  put  to  death  for 
their  perswasions  in  Holland,  during  the  reign  of 
Popery,  were  John  Wadon,  and  two  of  his  fra- 
ternity of  Waterlandt;  and  all  of  these  three 
were,  with  a  slow  fire,  rather  roasted  than  burnt  to 
death  in  the  Hague,  in  the  year  1527.  At  Brus- 
sels the  Dean  of  Louvain,  Inquisitor  of  Brabrant, 
Holland,  and  the  neighboring  Counties,  con- 
demned partly  and  partly  received  as  Penitents, 
about  sixty  persons.  At  the  same  time  the  Pro- 
vost of  the  Regular  Canons  of  Typres  was  Inquis- 
itor in  Flanders,  and  the  parts  adjacent,  and  the 
Provost  of  the  Scholars  of  Mons  in  Hainault,  was 
Inquisitor  in  that  district."  (The  History  of  the 
Reformation  in  the  Low  Countries,  Vol.  I.,  p.  57. 
London,  1720). 

Two  things  are  evident  from  the  above  quota- 
tion from  Brandt:  First,  the  Anabaptists  were 
dippers,  and  secondly  the  Anabaptists  were  of  the 
same  "perswasion  in  Holland." 

On  November  19,  1526,  the  Council  of  Zurich 
confirmed  the  edict  of  March  7,  that  Anabaptism 
should  be  punished  by  drowning,  and  that  the 
man  should  be  delivered  to  the  executioner,  who 
should  bind  his  hands,  place  him  in  a  boat  and 
throw  him   bound  into  the  water,  there  to  die. 


68  DID   THEY   DIP  ? 

(Fusslin,  Beytrage,  I.,  s.  271.  Engli,  Acten- 
sammlung,  514,  Nr.  107).  Mantz,  who  had  become 
an  immersionist,  received  this  sentence  January 
5,  1527.  It  was  carried  into  execution.  Bullinger 
says:  "As  he  came  down  from  the  Wellenberg  to 
the  fish  market  and  was  led  through  the  shambles 
to  the  boat,  he  praised  God  that  he  was  about  to 
die  for  his  truth;  for  Anabaptism  was  right  and 
founded  upon  the  word  of  God,  and  Christ  had 
foretold  that  his  followers  would  suffer  for  the 
truth's  sake.  And  the  like  discourse  he  urged 
much,  discussing  with  the  preacher  who  attended 
him.  On  the  way  his  mother  and  brother  came 
to  him  and  exhorted  him  to  be  steadfast,  and  he 
persevered  in  his  folly  even  to  the  end.  When  he 
was  bound  upon  the  hurdle  and  was  about  to  be 
thrown  into  the  stream  by  the  executioner,  he 
sang  with  a  loud  voice:  In  manus  tuas, 
Domine,  commendo  spiritum  meum.  *  Into  thy 
hands,  O  Lord,  I  commend  my  spirit;  '  and  here- 
with was  drawn  into  the  water  by  the  executioner 
and  drowned."  (Reformationsgeschchte,  II.,  s. 
382.     Frauenfeld,  1838). 

The  reason  for  this  punishment  by  drowning 
was  that  the  penalty  might  be  according  to  the 
offense.  This  is  fully  explained  by  many  writers. 
The  Anabaptists  were  immersionists  therefore  they 
should  be  drowned. 

The  senate  of  Zurich  decreed  that  any  one 
immersing  a  candidate  in  baptism — qui  merserit 
baptismo — should  be  drowned  is  a  significant  hint. 
(Zuingli,  Opera,  III.,  s.  364). 

John   Stumpf,   who    during   the    period   under 


THE   ANABAPTISTS   OF   THE   CONTINENT.  69 

survey,  lived  in  the  vicinity  of  Zurich  and  was 
familiar  with  the  Anabaptist  movement,  says  that 
generally  the  early  Anabaptists  of  Switzerland 
were  "  rebaptized  in  rivers  and  streams."  (Gemei- 
ner  Loblicher  Eydgenossenschaft). 

Gastins,  sarcastically,  used  to  say,  as  he  ordered 
the  Anabaptists  drowned:  "  They  like  immersion 
so  much  let  us  immerse  them." 

In  Appenzell,  1525,  the  Anabaptists  had  three 
places  where  meetings  were  held.  The  largest 
was  Teufen,  with  a  second  at  Herrisau,  and  the 
third  at  Brunnen.  In  all  of  these  places  the 
services  were  under  the  open  sky,  while  the  con- 
verts were  baptized  in  the  neighboring  brooks 
and  streams.     (Burrage,  p.  119). 

Sender,  an  old  historian  of  Augsburg,  says  of 
the  Anabaptists  of  1525-30: 

**  The  hated  sect  in  1527  met  in  the  gardens  of 
houses,  men  and  women,  rich  and  poor,  more  than 
1,100  in  all,  who  were  rebaptized.  They  put  on 
peculiar  clothes  in  which  to  be  baptized,  for  in 
their  houses  where  their  baptisteries  were,  there 
were  a  number  of  garments  always  prepared." 

Wagenseil,  a  later  historian  of  Augsburg,  says: 

"In  1527  the  Anabaptists  baptized  none  who 
did  not  believe  with  them;  and  the  candidates 
were  not  merely  sprinkled  with  water  but  wholly 
submerged." 

In  the  Bekenntniss  von  beiden  Sacramenten, 
which  at  Miinster,  October  22,  1533,  was  subscribed 
by  Rothman,  Klopriss,  Staprade,  Vienne,  and 
Stralen,  and  was  made  public  on  the  8th  of  No- 
vember following,  occurs  this  statement:    "  Bap- 


70  DID   THEY   DIP  ? 

tism  is  an  immersion  in  water,  which  the  candidate 
requests  and  receives  as  a  true  sign  that,  dead  to 
sin,  buried  with  Christ,  he  rises  to  a  new  life, 
henceforth  to  walk,  not  in  the  lusts  of  the  flesh, 
but  obedient  to  the  will  of  God." 

We  have  many  instances  of  immersion  at  St, 
Gall's.  It  is  said  that  Kessler,  the  pastor  of  the 
church  in  St.  Gall,  in  1523,  was  expounding  the 
book  of  Romans.  When  he  reached  the  sixth 
chapter,  and  was  considering  the  significance  of 
theordinance  of  baptism,  Hochriitiner  interrupted 
him,  saying,  "  I  infer  from  your  words  that  you 
are  of  the  opinion  that  children  may  be  bap- 
tized." "  Why  not?"  asked  Kessler.  Hochriitiner 
appealed  to  Mark  16:16,  "  He  that  believeth  and 
is  baptized  shall  be  saved,"  and  added  that  to 
baptize  a  child  was  the  same  as  dipping  in  water 
any  irrational  creature.  (Burrage,  pp.  116,  117. 
Kessler,  Sabbata,  s.  264.) 

In  March,  1525,  Grebel  baptized  Ulimann  by 
immersion.  The  account  of  the  baptism  is  taken 
from  Kessler,  who  says: 

"Wolfgang  Ulimann,  on  the  journey  to  Schaff- 
hausen,  met  Conrad  Grebel,  who  instructed  him 
so  highly  in  the  knowledge  of  Anabaptism  that 
he  would  not  be  sprinkled  out  of  a  dish,  but  was 
drawn  under  and  covered  over  with  the  waters  of 
the  Rhine."  (Sabbata,  Vol.  I.,  s.  266).  It  is  plain 
that  immersion  is  here  declared  to  be  a  distinctive 
view  of  the  Anabaptists.  He  was  "  instructed  " 
in  Anabaptism,  therefore  he  would  not  be 
sprinkled  but  was  dipped. 

"Wolfgang  Ulimann,  on  his  return  to  St.  Gall, 


THE   ANABAPTISTS   OF   THE   CONTINENT.  71 

after  his  baptism  at  Shaffhausen  by  Grebel,  gave  a 
new  impulse  to  the  Anabaptist  movement.  Grebel 
soon  followed — probably  late  in  March,  1525 — 
and  on  Palm  Sunday,  April  9,  he  baptized  a  large 
number  in  the  Sitter  river.  The  St.  Gall  Anabap- 
tists now  withdrew  from  the  churches,  leaving 
them  almost  empty,  and  holding  religious  services 
in  private  houses,  and  in  open  fields.  In  a  short 
time  the  Anabaptist  Church  numbered  eight 
hundred  members."  (Burrage,  pp.  117,  118.  Kess- 
ler,  Sabbata,  s.  267). 

Dr.  Howard  Osgood,  who  was  at  St.  Gall  in 
1867,  says: 

"A  mountain  stream,  sufficient  for  all  sprink- 
ling purposes,  flows  through  the  city;  but  in  no 
place  is  it  deep  enough  for  the  immersion  of  a 
person,  while  the  Sitter  river  is  between  two  and 
three  miles  away,  and  is  gained  by  a  difficult 
road.  The  only  solution  of  this  choice  was,  that 
Grebel  sought  the  river,  in  order  to  immerse  can- 
didates." 

Kessler  tells  us  that  at  St.  Gall's  the  Anabap- 
tists had  a  (Taufhaus),  or  baptistery.  (Sabbata, 
I.,  s.  270). 

Sicher,  a  Roman  Catholic  eye-witness,  says: 
"The  number  of  the  converted  (at  St.  Gall)  in- 
creased so  that  the  baptistery  could  not  contain 
the  crowd,  and  they  were  compelled  to  use  the 
streams  and  the  Sitter  River."  (Arx,  Geschichte 
d.  Stadt,  St.  Gallen,  II.,  s.  501). 

August  Naef,  secretary  of  the  Council  of  St. 
Gall,  in  a  work  published  in  1850,  on  p.  1021  says, 
speaking  of  the  Anabaptists  of  1525: 


72  DID   THEY  DIP  ? 

"  They  baptized  those  who  believed  with  them 
in  rivers  and  lakes,  and  in  a  great  wooden  cask 
in  the  butchers'  square  before  a  great  crowd." 

Dr.  Burrage  gives  a  resume  of  the  subject  in 
these  words: 

"  Now  we  know  that  immersion  was  practiced 
among  the  Swiss  Anabaptists  two  years  before. 
How  do  we  know?  Not  from  the  controversial 
writings  of  the  period,  but  from  the  diary  of  John 
Kessler,  the  Zwinglian  pastor  at  St.  Gall,  who, 
fortunately,  one  day  recorded  the  immersion  of 
Wolfgang  Uliman  by  Conrad  Grebel  in  the  Rhine, 
at  Schaffhausen,  in  April,  1525,  and  of  others  a 
little  later,  in  the  Sitter  River,  near  St.  Gall.  And 
so  the  fact  has  come  to  us.  Were  it  not  for  that 
diary,  inasmuch  as  Zwingle  did  not  publish  his 
'  Contra-Catabaptists '  until  1527,  and  inasmuch 
as  the  decree  of  the  Council  of  Zurich  against 
the  Anabaptists,  in  which  occur  the  words  qui 
iterum  mergat  mergatiir,  was  not  issued  until  1527, 
the  hidependent  might  claim  that  the  Baptists 
of  Switzerland  did  not  practice  immersion  before 
1627."  (Early  English  and  American  Baptists, 
by  Henry  S.  Burrage,  Independent,  October  21, 
1880). 

It  was  claimed  by  the  Baptists  of  the  sixteenth 
century  in  most  all  of  their  controversies  that  the 
Dutch  translation  of  the  New  Testament  rendered 
the  word  baptizo  by  doop,  which  meant  to  dip. 
Many  instances  were  given  of  the  use  of  this 
word  doop.  I  could  well  nigh  fill  a  book  with 
citations  from  Baptist  authors  on  this  point.  I 
shall  give  a  letter  written  to  Dr.  William   Russell 


THE  ANABAPTISTS  OF  THE   CONTINENT.  73 

to  this  effect.  He  had  made  this  statement  in  a 
public  debate,  and  he  presents  this  letter  in  con- 
firmation of  his  statement.     The  letter  reads: 

'*  Sir,  I  have  read  your  narrative  of  the  Ports- 
mouth Disputation   with   some  ministers  of  the 
Presbyterians,  and  have  also   seen  another  book 
published  by  your  adversaries   intitled  A?i  Impar- 
tial Account  of  the  Ports7noutJi  Disputation  by  Samuel 
Chandler,     William    Leigh,     Benj amine    Robinson, 
wherein  I   find    such  unchristian  reflections  and 
wrong  done  you  that  suites  not  with  the  Profes- 
sion they  make  of  true  Religion,  but  greatly  dem- 
onstrates the  badness  of  their  cause.     And  I  won- 
der at  their  Impudence  in  putting  so  plain  a  cheat 
upon  the  World  as  I  find  in  pag.  79,  in  these  words, 
viz.,  whether   he   might   not   have  spared  all  his 
Dutch?     Seeing  Doop   in  that  language   signifies 
only  to  wash,  and  is  used  when  they  only  pour  on 
water.     That  this   account  of  the  word  Doop  is 
notoriously  false  appears  from  the  common  use 
of  the  word,  and  the  account  of  it  which  is  given 
in  their  Dictionaries.    One  I  have  by  me,  which  I 
believe  is  the  largest  and  best  in  that  Tongue,  it 
being  a  double  Dictionary  of  Dutch  and  Eiiglish, 
and  English  and  Dutch,  with  Grammars  to  each  of 
them:  by  He?idrick  Hexham  and  Da?nel Mafily  and 
printed  at  Rotterdam,  1675  and    1678,  wherein  the 
English  word  Dip  is  render'd  Doop:  as,  to  dip  in 
a  sauce,  Doopen  in  een  sausse;  to   dip  to  the  bot- 
tom, Doopentotden  grondt  toe :  Dipped  Gedoopt;  a 
dipping,  eeii  doopinge ;  and  Doop,  Doopfel  Baptism; 
Doopen  to  baptize,  Dooper,  baptizer,  Doop  Dagh  the 
day  of  Baptism;  Doopen  onder  her  water,  to  duck 


74  DID   THEY   DIP  ? 

or  dive  under  water.  I  also  find  that  to  wash  or 
rinse  is  in  Dutch,  wasschen  ofte  sprolen;  to  sprinkle, 
stroyen  spreydeji  sprenchen;  and  also  Bespre?igen  is 
to  sprinkle,  besprinkle  or  to  strow:  to  pour  is  in 
Dutch  Gieten  or  spocten;  poured  upon,  Opgegoten 
ofte  op  Gestort.  Now  seeing  that  there  is  nothing 
of  truth  in  Vv^hat  thae  say  in  contradiction  to  you 
of  the  word  Doop,  but  that  it  undeniably  appears 
from  the  Dutch  Dictionary  to  signify  to  dip,  to 
duck  or  dive,  and  that  it  has  nothing  in  its  sig- 
nification on  either  to  sprinkle  or  wash  by  pour- 
ing water,  which  things  are  render'd  by  other 
Dutch  words:  I  know  not  how  they  can  clear 
themselves  from  the  guilt  of  a  wilful  Lie  to  cheat 
the  People  of  the  true  form  of  gospel  Baptism 
which,  in  my  opinion,  is  a  greater  sin  than  to 
cheat  them  of  their  money,  and  its  greatly  to  be 
lamented  that  any  professing  Godliness  should  so 
grossly  stain  their  Religion  for  the  sake  of  Infant- 
sprinkling,  a  meer  human  Tradition,  which  has 
neither  Command  nor  Example  for  it  in  the  holy 
Scriptures.  Sir,  I  was  willing  to  communicate 
this  unto  you,  that  if  you  need  the  Evidence  of 
this  Dictionary  and  have  not  already  met  with  it, 
you  may  have  recourse  unto  it,  and  so  heartily 
wishing  you  the  increase  of  true  wisdom  and 
Christian  courage  for  the  defence  of  the  truth 
of  Christ,  which  you  are  engaged  in,  I  rest  your 
loving  Christian  Friend  and  Brother. 
Leominster,  Nov.  17,  1699. 

"Isaac  Marlow." 
This   claim   was  urged  as  late  as  early  in  the 
eighteenth  century.     Thomas  Davye  says: 


THE   ANABAPTISTS   OF   THE   CONTINENT.  75 

"  And  the  Dutch  Translators  almost  everywhere 
translate  the  Words  Baptize  and  Baptism,  to  dip  or 
dipping.  Mat.  3.1.  *  John  the  dipper.'  And  v.  6. 
' Dip f  din  Jordan.'  And  z^.  16.  'Jesus  being  dipfd 
(climb'd  or)  came  up  out  of  the  Water!  And  Mat. 
28.19.  '  Instruct  all  People,  dippiiig  them  i7i  the  Name 
of  the  Father,  etc.  And  Acts  8:36.  *  What  hinders 
me  to  be  dipped?'  Andz/.  38.  '  A?td  he  dipp'd him! 
And  z^.  12.  •  They  were  dipp'd  both  Men  and 
Women.'  And  Rom.  6.3.  'Know  ye  ?iot  that  so 
many  of  us  as  were  dipp'd  i?ito  Christ  Jesus  were 
dipp'd  into  His  death. '  (The  Baptism  of  Adult 
Believers,  p.  113.    London,  1719). 

If  the  Anabaptists  of  Holland  sprinkled  it  is 
strange  that  the  Baptists  of  England  knew  noth- 
ing of  it.  Joseph  Hooke,  who  wrote  an  able  book 
on  baptism,  says: 

"What  Mr.  Erratt  hath  placed  in  the  margin 
concerning  the  Anabaptists  so-called  in  Holland, 
I  cannot  credit;  I  never  heard  that  they  only  pour 
water  upon,  or  dip  the  head  as  he  affirms,  yet  I  was 
well  acquainted  with  a  Baptist  Preacher  that  lived 
some  years  there,  who  never  gave  me  an  account  of 
any  such  thing.  Besides  a  credible  author  signifies 
that  some  tender  persons  of  his  acquaintance, 
being  desirous  to  be  rightly  Baptized,  have  had 
water  warmed  for  that  use  in  the  Netherlands." 
(A  Necessary  Apology  for  the  Baptized  Believ- 
ers, pp.  112,  113.     London,  1701). 

I  shall  now  introduce  some  general  historians 
and  v/riters  who  have  examined  the  subject,  and 
they  are  unanimous  in  their  opinion  that  the  true 
Anabaptists  were  dippers. 


76  DID   THEY   DIP  ? 

Blackburn  says: 

"The  Anabaptists  (rebaptizers,  generally  by 
immersion)  were  of  almost  every  sort,  from  the 
wildest  fanatics  to  the  later  and  more  sober 
Christians,  who  came  to  be  called  Baptists,  the 
Mennonites  from  the  second  race  of  Anabap- 
tists." (History  of  the  Christian  Church,  p. 
416). 

Gieseler  says: 

"  They  naturally  disowned  the  name  of  Ana- 
baptists, as  they  declared  infant  baptism  invalid, 
they  rather  called  themselves  Catabaptists. 
(Fiissli  III.,  229)."  (A  Compendium  of  Eccl. 
Hist.,  Vol.  v.,  pp.  355,  356). 

William  Robertson,  Principal  of  the  University 
of  Edinburgh,  says: 

"The  most  remarkable  of  their  religious 
tenets  related  to  the  sacrament  of  baptism, 
which,  as  they  contended,  ought  to  be  admin- 
istered only  to  persons  grown  up  to  years  of 
understanding,  and  should  be  performed  not  by 
sprinkling  them  with  water,  but  by  dipping  them 
in  it;  for  this  reason  they  condemned  the  baptism 
of  infants  and  rebaptizing  all  whom  they  ad- 
mitted into  their  society,  the  sect  came  to  be 
distinguished  by  the  name  of  Anabaptists.  To  this 
peculiar  notion  concerning  baptism,  which  has 
the  appearance  of  being  founded  on  the  practice 
of  the  church  in  the  apostolic  age,  and  contains 
nothing  inconsistent  with  the  peace  and  order  of 
human  society,  they  added  other  principles  of  a 
most  enthusiastic  as  well  as  dangerous  nature." 


THE   ANABAPTISTS   OF   THE   CONTINENT.  77 

(The  History  of  the  Reign  of  the  Emperor 
Charles  V.,  p.  246.    New  York,  1829). 

Gregory  and  Ruter  say: 

"  They  first  made  their  appearance  in  the 
provinces  of  upper  Germany  where  the  severity 
of  the  magistrates  kept  them  under  control.  But 
in  the  Netherlands  and  Westphalia  they  obtained 
admittance  into  several  towns,  and  spread  their 
principles.  The  most  remarkable  of  their 
religious  tenets  related  to  the  sacrament  of 
baptism,  which,  as  they  contended,  ought  to  be 
administered  only  to  persons  grown  up  to  years 
of  understanding,  and  should  be  performed,  not 
by  sprinkling  them  with  water,  but  by  dipping 
them  in  it.  For  this  reason  they  condemned  the 
baptism  of  Infants,  and  rebaptizing  all  whom  they 
admitted  into  their  society,  the  sect  came  to  be 
distinguished  by  the  name  of  Anabaptists."  (A 
Concise  History  of  the  Christian  Church,  p.  345. 
New  York,  1834). 

Schaff  very  fully  discusses  the  act  of  baptism 
among  the  Anabaptists.     He  says: 

"  The  Anabaptist  leaders,  Hiibmaier,  Denck, 
Hatzer,  Hut,  likewise  appeared  in  Augsburg  and 
gathered  a  congregation  of  eleven  hundred  mem- 
bers. They  held  a  general  synod  in  1527.  They 
baptized  by  immersion." 

Schaff  makes  it  very  clear  that  these  Anabap- 
tists, or  Catabaptists,  or  dippers,  were  the  same 
in  Germany,  Holland,  and  Switzerland,  and  were 
gathered  by  the  same  leaders.     He  says: 

"  All  the  Reformers  retained  the  custom  of 
infant-baptism,  and  opposed  rebaptism  ( Wieder- 


78  DID   THEY   DIP  ? 

taufe)  as  a  heresy.  So  far  they  agreed  with  the 
Catholics  against  the  Anabaptists,  or  Catabaptists, 
as  they  were  called,  although  they  rejected  the 
name,  because  in  their  view  the  baptism  of  infants 
was  no  baptism  at  all. 

"The  Anabaptists, or  Baptists  (as  distinct  from 
Pedobaptists),  sprang  up  in  Germany,  Holland, 
Switzerland,  and  organized  independent  congre- 
gations. Their  leaders  were  Hiibmaier,  Denck, 
Hatzer,  and  Grebel.  They  thought  that  the  Re- 
formers stopped  half  way,  and  did  not  go  to  the 
root  of  the  evil.  They  broke  with  the  historical 
tradition,  and  constructed  a  new  church  of  believ- 
ers on  the  voluntary  principle.  Their  fundamental 
doctrine  was,  that  baptism  is  a  voluntary  act,  and 
requires  personal  repentance  and  faith  in  Christ. 
They  rejected  infant  baptism  as  an  anti-scriptural 
invention.  They  could  find  no  trace  of  it  in  the 
New  Testament,  the  only  authority  in  matters  of 
faith.  They  were  cruelly  persecuted  in  Protestant 
as  well  as  Roman  Catholic  countries.  We  must 
carefully  distinguish  the  better  class  of  Baptists 
and  the  Mennonites  from  the  restless  revolution- 
ary radicals  and  fanatics,  like  Carlstadt,  Miinzer, 
and  the  leaders  of  the  Miinster  tragedy. 

"  The  mode  of  baptism  was  not  an  article  of  con- 
troversy at  that  time;  for  the  Reformers  either 
preferred  immersion  (Luther),  or  held  the  mode 
to  be  a  matter  of  indifference  (Calvin). 

"  Luther  agreed  substantially  with  the  Roman 
Catholic  doctrine  of  baptism.  His  Taiifb'uchlein 
of  1523  is  a  translation  of  the  Latin  Baptismal 
service,  including  the  formula  of  exorcism,  the 


THE   ANABAPTISTS   OF   THE   CONTINENT.  79 

sign  of  the  cross  and  the  dipping."  (History  of 
the  Christian  Church,  Vol.  VI.,  pp.  578,  607,  608). 

Dr.  William  R.  Williams,  one  of  our  very  best 
Baptist  historians,  very  closely  connects  the  Bap- 
tists of  the  Continent,  and  especially  those  of 
Holland,  with  the  Baptists  of  England.  He  had 
no  doubt  that  the  Anabaptists  of  Holland  and  the 
Baptists  of  England  practiced  immersion.  He 
says: 

"But  there  were  Anabaptists  and  Anabaptist 
martyrs  in  Holland  before  Menno  himself  had  yet 
left  the  Roman  communion.  That  some  of  these 
professed  and  practiced  immersion,  we  infer  from 
the  fact  that  their  persecutors,  who  delighted  in 
fitting  the  penalty,  as  they  cruelly  judged  it,  to 
the  fault,  put  many  of  them  to  death  by  full  im- 
mersion, swathing  the  sufferers  in  large  sacks  with 
'confined  arms  and  feet,  and  then  huddling  the 
sacks  with  their  living  contents  into  huge  punch- 
eons, where  the  victims  were  drowned.  So  the 
Swiss  Anabaptists,  some  of  them  at  least,  im- 
mersed in  rivers.  This  appears  from  the  work 
Sabbata  of  Knertz,  a  contemporary  Lutheran. 
The  Dunkers,  too,  on  our  shores,  who  were  driven 
from  a  Swiss  or  a  German  source,  are  immersion- 
ists  in  their  own  fashion. 

"  A  small,  but  in  its  day  a  very  distinguished, 
branch  of  the  Mennonites,  too,  were  on  principle 
immersionists.  These  were  the  Collegiants,  or 
Rhynsburgers.     *     *     * 

*'  In  times  later  than  these,  in  the  following 
century,  this  same  community  of  Holland  immer- 
sionists received  the  accession  of  Wagenaar,  one 


80  DID   THEY   DIP  ? 

of  the  historians  of  Holland,  whose  work,  in 
numerous  volumes,  is  still  consulted.  The  body- 
has  nearly  ceased  to  exist.  Some  funds  for 
orphans  that  it  possesses  are  still  applied  by  the 
other  branch  of  the  Mennonites  to  youths,  who 
have  the  choice  of  baptism  by  the  method  of  the 
Collegiants  or  that  of  the  Mennonites. 

"Thus  in  people  so  distinct  in  some  periods  of 
their  history,  and  so  clearly  allied  at  other  eras, 
as  the  nations  of  Holland  and  Britain,  it  has  been 
seen  that  God's  free  Bible,  in  the  hands  of  a  free 
church,  has  not  been  without  its  approximating 
effects  in  the  judgments  to  which  it  has  led  its 
students."  (Lectures  on  Baptist  History,  pp. 
246-248). 

Dr.  J.  B.  Thomas,  Newton  Theological  Semi- 
nary, says: 

"Usually  they  insisted  upon  immersion  as  the 
only  baptism." 

In  a  recent  and  very  ably  written  book,  Will- 
iam E.  Griffis,  says: 

"The  Nederlanders  who  first  claimed  the  right 
of  free  reading  and  interpretation  of  the  Bible 
demanded  the  separation  of  the  church  and  state, 
and  filled  their  country  full  of  ideas  hostile  to  all 
state  churches,  were  called  the  Anabaptists,  or 
rebaptizers,  because  they  believed  in  the  baptism 
of  adults  only,  and  usually  by  immersion."  (Brave 
Little  Holland,  p.  135.    Boston,  1894). 

This  question,  however,  only  incidentally  con- 
cerns the  Baptists  of  England.  It  has  never  been 
shown  that  all  of  the  English  Baptists  received 
their   baptism   from    Holland.      It   is  absolutely 


THE   ANABAPTISTS   OF   THE   CONTINENT.  81 

certain  that  the  English  Baptists  did  not  all 
originate  with  John  Smyth,  and  according  to  Dr. 
Whitsitt's  theory  John  Smyth  baptized  himself. 
His  baptism  was  not  therefore  from  Holland. 
And  his  contention  is  that  Richard  Blount's  bap- 
tism was  by  immersion.  Neither  has  it  been 
shown  that  all  of  the  English  Baptists  of  the  six- 
teenth century  came  from  Holland,  for  we  know 
from  many  sources  that  many  of  them  were 
natives  of  England.  And  there  is  not  a  line  of 
proof  that  the  Dutch  Baptists  who  did  come  prac- 
ticed sprinkling.  Dr.  Whitsitt  is  not  only  under 
obligation  to  prove  that  some  Dutch  Baptists 
were  sprinkled,  but  that  every  one  who  came  to 
England  had  been  sprinkled.  He  has  assumed  a 
universal  negative,  and  the  best  he  has  attempted 
is  to  show  that  some  persons  who  were  called 
Anabaptists,  were  sprinkled,  and  I  have  shown 
that  some  of  these  afterwards  became  immer- 
sionists. 


DID  THEY   DIP  ? 


CHAPTER  V. 

JOHN    SMYTH. 

I  can  but  feel  that  entirely  too  much  impor- 
tance has  been  given  to  the  so-called  se-baptism 
of  John  Smyth.  It  is  a  matter  of  little  moment 
whether  he  dipped  himself  or  was  baptized  by 
another.  Crosby  says  that  his  baptism  did  not 
affect  the  baptism  of  the  Baptist  Churches  of 
Fngland.     His  words  are: 

"If  he  were  guilty  of  what  they  charge  him 
with,  'tis  no  blemish  on  the  English  Baptists; 
who  neither  approved  of  any  such  method,  nor 
did  they  receive  their  baptism  from  him."  (Hist. 
English  Baptists,  Vol.  I.,  pp.  99,  100). 

It  is  sufficient  to  say  of  the  personal  history  of 
John  Smyth  that  he  was  a  clergyman  of  the  Epis- 
copal Church,  that  he  was  born  some  time  in  the 
sixteenth  century  and  died  in  161 1.  There  are 
two  theories  of  his  baptism,  i.  Dr.  Dexter's 
theory,  the  one  followed  by  Dr.  Whitsitt,  and  the 
one  generally  followed  by  Pedobaptists,  is  that 
he  was  baptized  in  1608.  (The  true  story  of  John 
Smyth,  p.  10).  After  a  long  dissertation,  in  which 
Dr.  Dexter  tries  to  prove  that  sprinkling  was  the 
general  form  of  baptism  apparently  from  the 
earliest  days  of  the  church,  he  says  of  Smyth: 

"Thus  gathered  together,  after  quietly  waiting 
until  all  with  one  consent  had  laid  the  duty  of 
beginning  upon  himself,  I  conceive  of  Mr.  Smyth 
— disrobed  sufficiently  to  allow  of  the  easy  wash- 


JOHN    SMYTH.  83 

ing  of  the  upper  portion  of  his  body  by  himself 
— as  walking  into  the  stream,  lifting  handsful  of 
water  and  pouring  them  liberally  upon  his  own 
head,  shoulders  and  chest,  until  clean  and  white 
they  glistened  under  the  purifying  streams,  sol- 
emnly repeating  as  he  did  so  that  formula  which 
the  Saviour  bequeathed  to  his  people  to  the  end 
of  time.  Then  turning,  I  imagine  as  receiving  his 
associates,  Helwys,  Murton,  Pygott,  Seamer,  Over- 
ton,  Bromhead,  Jessop,  Hodgkins,  Bywater,  Grin- 
dal,  Halton,  and  the  others,  not  forgetting  Mary 
Smyth,  Ann  Bromhead,  Ursula  Bywater,  the  Dick- 
ens sisters,  and  the  rest,  and,  one  by  one,  after  the 
same  manner,  reinitiated  each  into  the  earthly 
kingdom  of  God.  And  I  have  ventured  here  to 
introduce,  as  possibly  with  considerable  exacti- 
tude pictorially  representing  the  service  per- 
formed by  Mr.  Smyth  upon  himself,  a  tracing 
from  an  ancient  engraving  representing  the  self- 
baptism  in  earlier  days  of  a  '  Hermobaptist.'" 
(Pp.  30,  31). 

This  description  is  manifestly  absurd.  Nobody 
but  an  enemy  of  the  Baptists  ever  presented  a 
baptism  in  this  manner.  If  the  nude  picture 
given  by  Dr.  Dexter  teaches  anything,  it  is  that 
John  Smyth  was  immersed.  And  there  is  not  one 
whit  of  testimony  presented  by  Dr.  Dexter  him- 
self to  prove  that  Smyth  was  sprinkled.  It  is 
purely  '*  from  fancy  which  may  be  truth"  (p.  31), 
from  which  he  draws  his  conclusions.  The  fact 
is  that  the  whole  account  as  given  by  Dr.  Dexter 
is  full  of  guesses,  uncertainties,  and  nowhere  is 
there  a   definite  statement  that  John  Smyth  did 


84  DID   THEY    DIP  ? 

actually  baptize  himself.  Every  one  of  his  wit- 
nesses may  be  explained  away  without  difficulty. 
No  one  who  was  an  eye-witness  has  described  the 
baptism  according  to  this  account,  and  we  are 
left  to  conjecture  as  to  whether  it  was  by  Smyth 
baptizing  himself  or  by  some  one  else  baptizing 
him.  Dr.  Whitsitt  gives  no  authorities  which  are 
not  found  in  Dexter,  and  not  one  of  them  inti- 
mates that  Smyth  was  sprinkled. 

Barclay,  who  holds  to  the  affusion  view,  was 
compelled  to  admit  that  **  the  question  of  the 
manner  oi  baptism  does  not  come  up."  (Inner 
Life  of  the  Religious  Societies,  p.  70). 

Thomas  Price,  D.  D.,  one  of  the  very  best 
writers  on  this  subject,  gives  us  some  very  im- 
portant data.  We  must  remember  that  Smyth's 
enemies  are  responsible  for  this  history,  and  that 
is  not  always  trustworthy.     Dr.  Price  says: 

"  Much  has  been  said  about  Mr.  Smith  having 
baptized  himself.  Ainsworth,  Jessop,  and  some 
others  of  his  opponents  charge  him  with  having 
done  so,  and  make  use  of  the  alleged  fact  to 
awaken  the  ridicule  of  their  readers,  or  to  invali- 
date his  administration  of  the  ordinance.  I  con- 
fess that  the  matter  does  not  appear  to  me  to  be 
of  so  much  importance  as  some  Baptist  authors 
deem  it;  nor  do  I  think  it  so  easy  to  determine 
the  truth  or  falsity  of  the  statement  as  the  writers 
on  both  sides  conclude  it  to  be.  The  mere  fact 
that  such  a  statement  was  made  by  the  contem- 
poraries of  Smith,  and  that  no  direct  denial  of  it 
has  come  down  to  us,  gives  it  some  appearance  of 
truth.     But,  on  the  other  hand,  it  must  be  remem- 


JOHN   SMYTH.  85 

bered  that  the  parties  making  the  statement  were 
angry  controversialists,  who  spared  no  invective 
or  abuse,  but  seemed  to  think  that  every  epithet 
appropriate,  and  every  assertion  lawful,  by  which 
they  could  injure  the  reputation,  or  render  ridicu- 
lous the  proceedings  of  their  opponent.  Mr. 
Smith's  defenses  of  himself  are  not  known.  His 
enemies  adduce  long  quotations  from  his  writings, 
but  no  one  of  them  admits  the  fact  with  which 
he  was  charged,  or  attempts  to  justify  it.  He 
doubtless  must  have  referred  to  it,  and  had  he,  in 
doing  so,  made  the  slightest  admission,  they 
would  readily  have  retailed  his  language.  It  is  a 
further  confirmation  of  this  view  of  the  case  that 
contemporaneous  writers,  referring  to  the  bap- 
tismal controversy  amongst  the  Brownists,  and 
that  with  no  friendly  design,  make  no  reference  to 
such  a  fact."  (The  History  of  Protestant  Non- 
conformity, Vol.  I.,  p.  497). 

It  will  be  worth  while  to  note  that  Jessop,  a 
backslider  and  renegade,  and  Ainsworth  both 
wrote  books  to  sustain  infant  baptism  and  to 
overthrow  the  position  of  believers — baptism, 
as  held  by  Smyth.  A  close  reading  of  these 
books  would  easily  convince  any  one  that  they 
had  no  love  for  Smyth  nor  the  doctrines  that  he 
held. 

Wilson  says: 

"  His  principles  and  conduct  soon  drew  upon 
him  an  host  of  opponents,  the  chief  of  whom 
were  Johnson,  Ainsworth,  Robinson,  Jessop  and 
Clifton.  The  controversy  began  in  1606,  about 
the   time   Smyth   settled   in   Amsterdam.     Soon 


86  DID   THEY   DIP  ? 

afterwards  he  removed  with  his  followers  to  Ley- 
den,  where  he  continued  to  publish  various  books 
in  defence  of  his  opinions,  till  his  death  in  the 
year  1610."  (The  History  and  Antiquities  of 
Dissenting  Churches,  Vol.  I.,  p.  30). 

I  will  further  refresh  the  memory  of  the  reader 
by  reminding  him  that  this  company  which  perse- 
cuted Smyth  were  those  who  settled  in  New  Eng- 
land. They  fled  from  persecution  in  England  and 
Holland,  and  were  hardly  settled  in  New  England 
until  they  were  burning  witches  and  whipping 
Anabaptists.  I  do  not  think  that  Smyth  and  his 
opinions  met  with  much  justice  at  their  hands. 

2.  There  is  another  account  given  in  certain 
church  records  of  the  Baptist  Churches  of  Epworth 
and  Crowle  in  the  Isle  of  Axholme,  Lincolnshire, 
England.  The  church  Covenant,  dated  January 
4,  1599,  is  recorded  in  these  words: 

We,  this  church  of  Christ,  meeting  at  Epworth,  Crowle 
and  West  Butterwick,  in  the  county  of  Lincolnshire,  whose 
names  are  underwritten,  give  up  ourselves  to  the  Lord  and 
one  to  another  according  to  the  will  of  God.  We  do  prom- 
ise and  covenant  in  the  presence  of  Christ,  to  walk  together 
in  the  laws  and  ordinances  of  baptized  believers  according 
to  the  rules  of  the  Gospel  through  Jesus  Christ,  so  helping 
us.  James  Rayner,  John  Morton,  Henry  Helwise,  William 
Brewster,  William  Bradford,  elders  of  ye  church. 

There  are  appended  thirty-two  names,  some 
with  the  X.  It  is  further  stated  that  William 
Bradford  was  "  baptized  inthe  old  river  Don  below 
Epworth  town  at  midnight,  1595."  There  is  also 
a  record  that  the  church  desired  to  leave  for  Hol- 
land, "  where  we  hear  there  is  freedom  for  all  men." 

It  is  further  recorded: 

4.  It  affirms  that  John  Smith,  vicar  of  Gainsborough, 
enquired  about  baptism  in  February  4,  1604,  was  convinced 


JOHN   SMYTH.  87 

of  its  truth  May7th,  and"  at  midnight  on  the  24th  of  March, 
1606,  he  was  baptized  by  Elder  John  Morton  in  the  river 
Don,  and  walked  to  Epworth,  a  distance  of  two  miles,  in 
his  wet  clothes." 

And  the  document  also  records  that  "John 
Smith,  John  Morton  (who  immersed  him),  Henry 
Helwise  and  others  held  a  meeting  in  regard  to 
removing  the  church  to  Holland."  This  was  the 
4th  of  April,  1609. 

The  authenticity  of  these  records  has  been  vio- 
lently assailed  by  Dr.  Whitsitt     He  says: 

A  g-eneration  has  passed  away  since  1862,  and  yet  the 
only  English  production  in  Baptist  history  that  has  come  to 
the  attention  of  the  general  public  has  been  the  fraud  at 
Epworth,  Crowle  and  West  Butterwick,  that  brings  blushes 
to  the  cheeks  of  intelligent  Baptist  people  in  all  parts  of  the 
world.    (P.  15). 

On  pp.  62,  63,  Dr.  Whitsitt  uses  many  words  of 
censure  on  these  documents.  He  calls  them  "  a 
fabulous  statement,"  "  fabrication,"  "  no  sadder 
humiliation  has  ever  been  inflicted  upon  our  Bap- 
tist name  and  cause,"  "  fill  up  the  cup  of  our  mor- 
tification," etc.  Dr.  Whitsitt  is  very  severe 
against  Dr.  Clifford  who  published  these  records. 
Dr,  Whitsitt  always  praises  those  who  praise  him. 
He  cannot  say  enough  of  Prof.  Hoop  Scheffer,  of 
Amsterdam,  who  complimented  him  and  agrees 
with  him  (p.  17).  But  Dr.  Clifford  and  the  Eng- 
lish Baptist  historians  generally,  who  ought  to 
know  something  of  this  subject,  all  differ  with  Dr. 
Whitsitt,  and  so  their  investigations  reflect  **  a 
painful  light  upon  the  condition  of  studies  among 
Baptists  in  England."  (P.  63). 

My  position  holds  good  that  John  Smyth  was 
immersed  irrespective   of   these   records,  but    it 


88  DID   THEY   DIP  ? 

is  absolutely  essential  for  Dr.  Whitsitt  to  prove 
that  these  records  are  false. 

I  would  also  suggest  that  both  of  these  theories 
might  be  true.  It  might  be  true  that  Smyth  was 
baptized  in  the  Don  river  and  afterwards  baptized 
himself.  The  Baptists  of  that  generation  were 
much  disturbed  on  the  subject  of  a  proper  admin- 
istrator of  baptism,  and  were  often  rebaptized.  If 
Smyth  was  the  visionary  man  that  Dexter  de- 
clares him  to  be,  nothing  would  be  more  probable 
than  that  he  should  do  this  very  thing. 

It  is  a  strong  fact  that  cannot  be  overcome 
that  the  historians  declare  that  Smyth  was  im- 
mersed. The  array  of  writers  who  affirm  this  is  a 
very  formidable  one.     I  shall  give  some  of  them. 

Joseph  A.  Adshead,  Manchester,  says: 

•*  Mr.  Smyth  (who  had  been  a  Brownist)  and  his 
followers  settled  in  Amsterdam  in  1608.  He  was 
led  to  RENOUNCE  INFANT  SPRINKLING  and  Came  to 
the  conclusion  that  immersion  was  the  true  and 
proper  manner  of  baptism;  and  that  it  should  be 
administered  only  to  those  who  are  capable  of 
PROFESSING  FAITH  IN  CHRIST."  (The  Progress  of 
Religious  Sentiment,  p.  xix.    London,  1852). 

George  Punchard  says: 

*'  Mr.  Smyth  proceeded  first  to  rebaptize  him- 
self, by  immersion,  and  then  to  immerse  Mr. 
Helwise,  his  associate,  and  several  others,  his 
followers."  (The  History  of  Congregationalism, 
p.  319.    Salem,  1841). 

W.  M.  Blackburn,  D.  D.,  Methodist,  says: 

"Among  the  English  Separatists  in  Holland 
was  Rev.  John  Smyth,  who,  probably  immersed 


JOHN    SMYTH.  89 

himself,  felt  so  adverse  to  liturgies  that  he  thought 
that  the  Bible  ought  not  to  be  read  publicly  in 
churches,  nor  psalms  sung  from  a  printed  page, 
gave  an  Arminian  shape  to  his  vague  theology, 
and  at  Amsterdam  (1608-9)  gathered  a  flock  of 
English  Baptists,  who  began  to  be  more  clearly 
distinguished  from  the  Anabaptists."  (History  of 
the  Christian  Church,  p.  553.  Cincinnati,  1879). 
Ivimey,  the  Baptist  historian,  says: 
"Upon  a  further  consideration  of  the  subject, 
he  saw  reason  to  conclude  that  immersion  was 
the  true  and  proper  meaning  of  the  word  baptism 
and  that  it  should  be  administered  to  those  only 
who  were  capable  of  professing  faith  in  Christ." 
(A  History  of  the  English  Baptists,Vol.  I.,  p.  114). 
David  Masson,  M.  A.,  LL.  D.,  Professor  of 
English  Literature  in  the  University  of  Edin- 
burgh, spent  a  great  deal  of  time  in  the  British 
Museum  gathering  material  for  his  great  life  of 
Milton.  He  gives  an  interesting  account  of  his 
work.     He  says: 

Of  the  multiplicity  and  extent  of  the  researches  that 
were  required,  any  general  account  would  be  tedious. 
Perhaps,  however,  I  may  allude  specially  to  my  obliga- 
tions to  the  State  Paper  Office  in  London,  where  there 
were  printed  calendars  of  the  State  papers;  the  task  of  con- 
sulting them  is  easy.  Unfortunately,  when  I  began  my  read- 
ings m  the  great  national  repository,  the  domestic  papers 
of  the  period  of  most  interest  to  me  —  from  1640  to  1643  — 
were  utterly  uncalendared.  They  had,  therefore,  to  be 
brought  to  me  in  bundles  and  inspected  carefully,  lest 
anything  useful  should  be  skipped.  In  this  way  I  had 
to  persevere  at  a  slow  rate  in  my  readings  and  note  papers; 
but  I  believe  I  can  now  say  for  much  the  greatest  part  of  the 
time  embraced  in  the  present  volume  (III)  — 1640  to  1643  — 
there  is  not  a  single  domestic  document  extant  of  those  that 
used  to  be  in  the  "  State  Paper  Office,"  which  has  not  passed 
through  my  hands  and  been  scrutinized.  (Prefaceto  Vol.  III.). 


90  DID   THEY   DIP  ? 

Masson  said: 

"  Now  Smyth,  adhering  to  the  tenet,  had  pushed 
it  to  a  logical  consequence  not  ventured  on  by 
the  Separatists  before  him.  If  the  ordination 
of  the  Church  of  England  were  rejected,  so  that 
her  ministers  had  to  be  reordained  when  they 
became  pastors  and  teachers  of  Separatist  con- 
gregations, why  was  the  baptism  of  the  Church 
of  England  accounted  valid;  why  were  not  mem- 
bers of  the  Church  rebaptized  when  they  became 
Separatists?  Through  the  prosecution  of  this 
query,  aided  by  other  investigations,  Smyth  had 
developed  his  Separatism  into  the  form  known 
as  Anabaptism,  not  only  requiring  the  rebaptism 
of  members  of  the  Church  of  England,  but  reject- 
ing the  baptism  of  infants  altogether,  and  insist- 
ing on  immersion  as  the  proper  Scriptural  form 
of  the  rite."  (The  Life  of  John  Milton,  Vol.  II., 
p.  540.     London,  1871). 

Daniel  Neal,  M.  A.,  the  standard  Puritan  histo- 
rian, says: 

"  He  was  for  refining  upon  the  Brownist  scheme, 
and  at  last  declared  for  the  Principles  of  the  Bap- 
tists; upon  this  he  left  Amsterdam,  and  settled 
with  his  disciples  at  Leydeji,  where,  being  at  a  loss 
for  a  proper  administrator  of  the  Ordinance  of  Bap- 
tism, he  plunged  himself,  and  then  performed  the 
ceremony  upon  others,  which  gained  him  the  name 
of  Se-Baptist."  (The  History  of  the  Puritans, 
Vol.  IL,  p.  29.     London,   1732). 

Thomas  Price  says: 

"  But  his  views  on  the  subject  of  baptism  were 
still  more  obnoxious,  and  awakened  an  angry  and 


JOHN    SMYTH.  91 

fierce  controversy,  in  which  the  sacredness  of  char- 
acter and  the  charity  of  the  gospel  were  alike 
disregarded.  His  sentiments  on  this  latter  point 
were  substantially  as  those  now  held  by  the  Eng- 
lish Baptists;  and  the  mode  in  which  he  arrived 
at  them  was  as  follows,  etc."  (The  History 
of  Protestant  Nonconformity  in  England,  Vol.  I., 

p.  495). 

Taylor,  the  historian  of  the  General  Baptists  of 

England,  says; 

"  In  reviewing  the  subject  of  separation,  Mr. 
Smyth  discovered  that  he  and  his  friends  acted 
inconsistently  in  rejecting  the  ordination  received 
from  the  Church  of  England,  because  they 
esteemed  her  a  false  church,  and  yet  retained  her 
baptism  as  true  baptism.  This  led  him  to  exam- 
ine the  nature  and  ground  of  baptism;  and  he 
perceived,  that  neither  infant  baptism  nor  sprink- 
ling had  any  foundation  in  Scripture.  With  his 
usual  frankness  he  was  no  sooner  convinced  of 
this  important  truth  than  he  openly  professed 
and  defended  his  sentiments.  He  urged  the  in- 
consistency of  their  practice  on  his  former  asso- 
ciates so  clearly  that  the  bishop  before  mentioned 
tells  Mr.  Robinson,  'There  is  no  remedy;  you 
must  go  forward  to  anabaptism  or  come  back  to 
us;  all  of  your  Rabbins  cannot  answer  the  charge 
of  your  rebaptized  brother  (Mr.  Smyth).  If  we 
be  a  true  church,  you  must  return;  if  we  be  not 
(as  a  false  church  is  no  church  of  God),  you  must 
rebaptize.  If  our  baptism  be  good,  then  is  our 
ordination  good.  He  tells  you  true:  your  station 
is  unsafe;    either  you    must    forward   to    him  or 


'92  DID   THEY    DIP  ? 

back  to  us.'  "  ( Hall's  Works,  Vol.  IX.,  pp.  384,  400. 
The  History  of  the  English  General  Bapti&ts, 
Vol.  I.,  p.  68). 

Walter  Wilson,  who  is  one  of  the  best  of  the 
Puritan  historians,  says: 

*'  Upon  a  further  consideration  of  the  subject  he 
saw  grounds  to  consider  immersion  as  the  true 
and  only  meaning  of  the  word  baptism,  and  that 
it  should  be  administered  to  those  alone  who  were 
capable  of  professing  their  faith  in  Christ."  (The 
History  and  Antiquities  of  Dissenting  Churches, 
Vol.  I.,  p.  29). 

Thomas  Wall,  1691,  was  a  very  bitter  opponent 
of  the  Baptists.  In  explaining  the  immersion  of 
John  Smyth  he  says: 

•*  A  third  Devise  these  People  have  found  to 
Deprive  Infants  of  their  Rights  to  Water  Baptism, 
perswading  People  of  years  they  were  not  Bap- 
tized at  all,  if  not  Dip'd  or  Plung'd  in  Water." 
(Baptism  Anatomized,  p.  107.     London,  1691). 

Giles  Shute,  in  writing  against  the  Baptists  in 
1696,  was  very  bitter.     He  says: 

"Now  let  the  wise  judge  in  what  abominable 
disorder  they  retain  their  Baptisme  ever  since 
from  Mr.  Smyth;  and  whether  it  stinketh  not  in 
the  nostrils  of  the  Lord  ever  since  as  the  ministry 
of  Corah  and  his  company  did.  In  his  Table  of 
particulars,  wherein  this  passage  is  directed  to  it, 
is  querqed,  who  began  Baptisme  by  way  of  Dip- 
ping among  English  People  that  call  themselves 
Baptists?  The  answer  is,  John  Smith,  who  Bap- 
tized himself.  Thus  you  may  see  upon  what  a 
rotten  foundation  the  Principles  of  the  Anabap- 


JOHN    SMYTH.  93^^ 

tists  is  built  and  at  what  Door  that  Anticovenant 
Doctrine  came  in  among  us  in  England;  therefore 
it  is  of  the  Earth,  and  but  a  Human  Innovation, 
and  ought  to  be  abhor'd  and  detested  by  all 
Christian  People."  (A  General  Challenge  to  all 
Antipedobaptists). 

I  think  that  we  may  easily  reach  the  conclu- 
sion, which  ever  of  these  two  theories  we  hold,  that 
John  Smyth  was  immersed.  I  know  not  a  line  of 
original  testimony  which  teaches  the  contrary. 
The  very  best  in  favor  of  sprinkling  is  some 
strained  inferences.  The  historians  are  unanimous 
in  favor  of  immersion,  and  as  I  have  shown  from 
Pedobaptist  writers  of  the  seventeenth  century,  it 
was  the  concurrent  opinion  of  that  century. 

Dr.  Whitsitt  makes  a  labored  argument  to  prove 
that  John  Smyth  baptized  himself  (p.  64)  but  he 
does  not  produce  a  line  of  proof  that  the  baptism 
was  performed  by  sprinkling.  He  only  infers  that 
the  Mennonites  practiced  sprinkling,  therefore 
Smyth  was  sprinkled.  But  Smyth's  baptism  was 
in  no  wise  connected  with  the  Mennonites.  It  is 
possible  that  Smyth  received  his  views  in  regard  to 
immersion  from  the  New  Testament.  I  am  sure 
there  is  no  proof  that  Smyth  was  an  affusionist. 

Smyth  appears  to  have  remained  pastor  of  this 
congregation  till  his  death  in  161 1,  "when  he  was 
succeeded  by  a  Thomas  Helwisse,  one  of  the  old- 
est members,  a  plain  man,  of  pragmatic  notions, 
and  quite  self  taught."  (Masson's  Life  of  Milton, 
Vol.  II.,  p.  540).  But  Masson  does  not  leave  us  in 
doubt  as  to  the  views  of  this  new  pastor.  He 
says: 


^4  DID   THEY   DIP  ? 

"  Now,  this  Helwisse,  returning  to  England 
shortly  after  1611,  drew  around  him,  as  we  saw, 
the  first  congregation  of  General  or  Arminian 
Baptists  in  London;  and  this  obscure  Baptist  con- 
gregation seems  to  have  become  the  depositary 
for  all  England  of  the  absolute  principle  of  Lib- 
erty of  Conscience  expressed  in  the  Amsterdam 
Confession  as  distinct  from  the  more  stinted  prin- 
ciple advocated  by  the  general  body  of  the  Inde- 
pendents. Not  only  did  Helwisse's  folk  differ 
from  the  Independents  generally  on  the  subject  of 
Infant  Baptism  and  Dipping;  they  differed  also  on 
the  power  of  the  magistrate  in  matters  of  belief 
and  conscience,"     (Life  of  John  Milton,  Vol.  II., 

P-  544). 

Leonard  Busher  appears  to  have  been  a  noted 
member  of  this  congregation  of  Helwise's.  **It 
was,"  says  Masson,  "  in  short,  from  their  little 
dingy  meeting  house,  somewhere  in  Old  London, 
that  there  flashed  out,  first  in  England,  the  abso- 
lute doctrine  of  religious  liberty.  '  Religions 
Peace:  or,  a  Plea  for  Liberty  of  Conscience^  is  the 
title  of  a  little  tract  first  printed  in  1614,  and  pre- 
sented to  King  James  and  the  English  Parliament, 
by  *  Leonard  Busher,  citizen  of  London.'  This 
Leonard  Busher,  there  is  reason  to  believe,  was  a 
member  of  Helwisse's  congregation  and  we  learn 
from  the  tract  itself  that  he  was  a  poor  man, 
laboring  for  his  subsistence,  who  had  his  share  of 
persecution.  He  had  probably  been  one  of 
Smyth's  Amsterdam  flock  who  had  returned  with 
Helwisse.  The  tract  is  certainly  the  earliest 
known  English  publication   in  which  full  liberty 


JOHN    SMYTH.  95 

of  conscience  is  openly  advocated.  It  cannot  be 
read  now  without  a  throb.  The  style  is  simple 
and  rather  helpless,  but  one  comes  on  some  touch- 
ing passages."  (Masson's  Life  of  Milton,Vol.  III., 
p.  102).  His  testimony  on  the  subject  of  dipping 
is  clear  and  concisive.     Busher  says: 

"And  therefore  Christ  commanded  his  disci- 
ples to  teach  all  nations,  and  baptize  them;  that 
is,  to  preach  the  word  of  salvation  to  every  creat- 
ure of  all  sorts  of  nations  that  are  worthy  and 
willing  to  receive  it.  And  such  as  shall  willingly 
and  gladly  receive.  He  has  commanded  to  be 
baptized  in  the  water;  that  is,  dipped  for  dead  in 
the  water."  (Plea  for  Liberty  of  Conscience, 
p.  50). 

From  this  tract  it  is  certain  that  Busher  held 

three    distinctive   Baptist    doctrines  :     I.  Liberty 

of  conscience;    2.  Immersion  or   dipping,  and   3. 

Believers'  baptism.     In  order  to  break  the  force 

of  this  clear  and  unequivocal  testimony  Dr.  Whit- 

sitt  makes  the  surprising  declaration  that  there  is 

no  proof  that  Busher  was  a  Baptist. 

Mr.  Leonard  Busher,  a  citizen  of  London,  published  in 
1614  the  well  Known  "  Plea  for  Liberty  of  Conscience."  He 
may  have  been  a  Baptist,  but  there  is  no  proof  of  it.  He 
believed  in  immersion,  which  the  Baptists  had  not  then  re- 
vived, and  describes  it  as  "being  dipped  for  dead  in  the 
water;"  but  it  has  not  been  shown  that  he  ever  put  this  tenet 
into  practice.  If  he  did  the  Baptists  of  1641  had  never 
been  informed  of  it.    {^Religious  Herald,  May  7,  1896). 

But  in  his  book  (pp.  69,  70)  Dr.  Whitsitt 
changes  his  mind  and  Busher  is  declared  to  be  an 
Anabaptist.  But  with  the  declaration  of  Busher 
before  him  that  dipping  was  baptism  Dr.  Whit- 
sitt says: 


96  DID   THEY    DIP  ? 

It  is  sometimes  too  confidently  assumed  that  this,  pas- 
sage proves  Mr.  Busher  to  have  been  an  immersionist  in 
practice  as  well  as  in  principle,  but  we  know  too  little 
regarding  him  to  venture  distinct  assertions  on  that  point. 
*  *  *  The  act  of  baptism  observed  by  him  would  in  that 
case  become  a  question  for  Dutch  archaeologists.  But 
either  Dutch  or  English  archaeologists,  founding  on  the 
mere  fact  that  he  was  an  immersionist  in  principle,  must 
jump  a  long  distance  to  the  conclusion  that  he  was  also  an 
immersionist  in  practice.  *  *  *  i^  brief  words,  Mr. 
Busher  is  a  shadowy  figure,  and  it  is  entirely  uncertain 
whether  be  spent  his  last  years  in  England  or  Holland. 
Therefore  we  are  not  entitled,  for  the  present  at  least,  to 
establish  any  definite  conclusions  regarding  him  or  his 
people,  except  that  if  he  had  practiced  immersion  at  Am- 
sterdam in  1611  we  should  have  been  likely  to  hear  a  good 
deal  more  about  him  than  has  been  brought  to  light  hither- 
to. *  *  *  The  most  that  can  be  safely  claimed  for  Mr. 
Busher  is  that  he  was  an  advance  herald  of  genuine  Bap- 
tist principles  in  Holland,  that  were  shortly  to  be  reduced 
to  practice  in  England. 

We  have  the  surprising  declarations  that  Busher 
was  an  Anabaptist,  was  a  believer  in,  and  advocate 
of  immersion,  and  yet  that  he  did  not  practice  it. 
This  is  only  on  a  line  with  much  of  the  rest  of  this 
remarkable  book.  Every  effort  is  made  to  dis- 
credit all  who  practice  immersion  and  to  explain 
away  the  facts,  and  a  like  effort  is  made  to  exalt 
all  who  practice  sprinkling  and  to  magnify  the 
number  of  such  examples  among  Anabaptists. 

I  know  of  no  Pedobaptist  author  who  denies 
that  Busher  was  a  Baptist;  and  with  the  excep- 
tion of  Dr.  Whitsitt,  there  is  no  difference  of 
opinion  on  this  subject  among  Baptist  authors. 
I  give  the  testimony  of  a  few  Pedobaptist  writers: 

Barclay  says: 

"  In  1614,  Leonard  Busher,  who  is  believed  to 
have  been  a  member  of  Helwys'  and  Morton's 
church,  presented  to  King  James  and  the  Parlia- 
ment his  petition  for  liberty  of  conscience,  which 


JOHN    SMYTH.  97 

was  published  in  1614."     (The  Inner  Life  of  Re- 
ligious Societies,  p.  98). 

Rev.  A.  H.  Drysdale,  M.  A.,  a  Presbyterian  his- 
torian, says: 

"  Unquestionably  it  was  the  Baptists  who  first 
repudiated,  clearly  and  strongly,  all  coercive 
power  whatever  in  religion  (see  especially  Leon- 
ard Busher's  Religious  Peace  ;  or,  a  Pie  a  for  Liberty  of 
Conscierice,  1614);  and  they  were  constant  to  this 
principle  throughout."  (History  of  the  Presby- 
terians in  England,  p.  353,  note). 

John  Stoughton  says: 

"The  Baptists  w^ere  foremost  in  the  advocacy  of 
religious  freedom,  and  perhaps  to  one  of  them, 
Leonard  Busher,  citizen  of  London,  belongs  the 
honor  of  presenting  in  this  country  the  first  dis- 
tinct and  broad  plea  for  liberty  of  conscience.  It 
is  dated  1614,  and  is  prefaced  by  an  epistle  to  the 
Presbyterian  reader;  and  a  very  remarkable  epis- 
tle it  is,  deserving  a  renown  which  it  has  never 
acquired."  (Ecclesiastical  History  of  England, 
p.  231). 

Hanbury  says: 

"'Religious  Peace;  or,  a  Plea  for  Liberty  of 
Conscience,'  by  Leonard  Busher,  a  citizen  of 
London,  and  a  Baptist,  1614."  (Memorials,  Vol. 
I.,  p.  224,  note). 

The  Baptists  have  been  equally  as  explicit  as 
the  Pedobaptists  in  declaring  that  Leonard  Busher 
was  a  Baptist.  B.  Evans,  (Early  English  Baptists, 
Vol.  I.,  pp.  229-231);  Richard  B.  Cook,  (The  Story 
of  the  Baptists,  pp.  86,  87);  George  B.  Taylor, 
(Religious  Freedom,  p.  32);  and  Armitage,  (His- 
7 


98  DID   THEY   DIP  ? 

tory  of  the  Baptists,  pp.  440,  441),  all  so  affirm. 
I  shall  quote  some  words  from  Prof.  Vedder,  of 
Crozer  Seminary,  whom  Dr.  Whitsitt  claims  sus- 
tains his  position.  He  has  made  two  declarations 
on  the  subject.  The  first  (Baptists  and  Liberty 
of  Conscience,  p.  18.  Cincinnati,  1884)  was  be- 
fore this  controversy  began,  and  the  second  in 
The  Examiner,  May  21,  1896.  I  quote  from  the 
latter.     Prof.  Vedder  says: 

"That  honor  belongs,  as  far  as  known,  to 
Leonard  Busher,  who  wrote  a  tract  in  favor  of 
liberty  of  conscience  in  1614,  called  Religions 
Peace.  Dr.  Whitsitt  indeed  says  that  there  is  no 
proof  that  he  was  a  Baptist.  /  can  ofily  mildly 
express  m,y  surprise  that  it  takes  so  much  proof  to  con- 
vince the  good  doctor  of  some  tlmigs,  and  so  little  to 
convince  him  of  others.  It  seems  to  me  that  no- 
body who  reads  the  book  of  Busher  can  be  in  any 
real  doubt  as  to  who  and  what  he  was.  If  Ed- 
ward Barber  was  a  Baptist,  Leonard  Busher  was 
a  Baptist;  and  the  latter  wrote:  'And  such  as 
gladly  receive  it  [the  Gospel]  he  hath  commanded 
to  be  baptized  in  water;  that  is,  dipped  for  dead 
in  the  water.'  We  do  not  find  such  a  sentiment, 
outside  Baptist  literature,  in  the  first  half  of  the 
seventeenth  century." 

It  does  not  seem  to  me  that  anything  could  be 
clearer  than  that  Busher  was  a  Baptist.  No  man 
save  a  Baptist,  in  the  early  part  of  the  seven- 
teenth century,  held  such  views  on  liberty  of 
conscience  and  baptism.  If  we  had  no  other 
authority,  this  statement  of  Busher's  alone  ought 
to  settle  the  question  of  dipping  among  the  Eng- 
lish Baptists. 


THE   BAPTISTS   OF    164I.  99 


CHAPTER  VI 

THE   BAPTISTS    OF    164I. 

Dr.  Whitsitt  says: 

I  have  often  declared  it  to  be  my  opinion  that  the  im- 
mersion of  adult  believers  was  a  lost  art  in  England,  from 
the  year  1509,  the  accession  of  Henry  VIII.,  to  the  year 
1641,  following  the  imprisonment   of  Archbishop  Laud. 
(  Western  Recorder,  July  9,  1896). 

This  statement  is  neither  true  in  reference  to 
the  Episcopalians  nor  the  Baptists.  In  regard  to 
the  Episcopalians  we  have  direct  testimony.  The 
Catechism  of  Edward  VI.,  A.  D.  1553,  has: 

^'Master:  Tell  me  (my  son)  how  these  two 
sacraments  be  ministered:  baptism,  and  that 
which  Paul  calleth  the  supper  of  the  Lord. 

''Scholar:  Him  that  believeth  in  Christ;  pro- 
fesseth  the  articles  of  the  Christian  Religion;  and 
mindeth  to  be  baptized  (I  speak  now  of  them 
that  be  grown  to  ripe  years  of  discression,  sith  for 
young  babes  their  parents'  or  the  Church's  pro- 
fession sufificeth),  the  minister  dippeth  in  or 
washeth  with  pure  and  clear  water  only,  in  the  name 
of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost;  and  then  commendeth  him  by  prayer  to 
God,  into  whose  Church  he  is  now  openly  as  it 
were  enrolled  that  it  may  please  God  to  grant 
him  his  grace  whereby  he  may  answer  in  belief 
and  life  agreeably  to  his  profession."  (P.  516, 
The  Two  Liturgies,  1549  and  1552.  Parker  So- 
ciety, Cambridge,  1844). 

I  shall  give  a  more  extended  statement  of  the 
Baptists.     The   Baptists  of  this  period  had  been 


100  DID   THEY   DIP  ? 

greatly  persecuted.  They  seldom  dared  to  write 
anything,  and  to  keep  church  records  would  only 
endanger  their  lives.  They  were  banished,  im- 
prisoned and  burned.  For  an  account  of  the 
Anabaptists  we  must  for  the  most  part  look  to 
their  enemies,  and  we  must  remember  the  bitter 
malignity  of  these  enemies.  The  persecutions 
of  Laud  were  scarcely  more  severe  than  those 
which  went  before.  Laud  had  almost  abso- 
lute authority.  He  was  suspected  of  trying  to 
restore  Romanism,  and  there  is  no  doubt  that 
he  possessed  the  Roman  Catholic  spirit  of 
persecution.  In  order  to  carry  out  his  designs  he 
was  compelled  to  silence  all  opposers.  William 
Lee  says  of  him: 

"The  fact  now  referred  to  is  of  itself  sufficient; 
and  it  is  hardly  necessary  to  go  into  the  question, 
how,  under  Laud's  rule,  the  repression  of  the  non- 
conformists was  carried  out.  He  is  said  to  have 
preferred  persuasion  to  force;  but  it  is  not  denied 
that,  when  necessary,  the  most  horrible  severities 
were  employed  under  his  sanction  to  enforce  con- 
formity. The  cases  of  Leighton,  Prynnes,  Bost- 
wick  and  Burton  are  well  known,  with  hundreds 
of  cases  of  dissenters,  who,  if  not  shockingly 
mutilated  and  condemned  to  perpetual  imprison- 
ment, were  silenced  and  compelled  to  seek 
liberty  of  conscience  beyond  seas,  or,  worse  than 
all,  to  violate  their  own  sense  of  duty,  and  lose 
their  spiritual,  in  seeking  to  save  their  bodily,  life 
and  well-being.  Nor  is  it  disputed  that  of  the 
Star  Chamber  and  Court  of  High  Commission,  by 
which  these  men  were  condemned.  Laud  was  the 


THE   BAPTISTS   OF    164I.  101 

moving  spirit;  nay,  that  if,  in  these  courts,  any 
voice  was  for  more  than  ordinarily  severe  measures, 
it  was  sure  to  be  his.  (Gardiner:  Personal 
History,  I.,  6).  But  perhaps  the  worst  charge 
against  Laud  in  this  connection  is  the  alleged 
fact,  that  to  gain  the  power  of  suppressing  the 
nonconformists  and  otherwise  securing  the 
restoration  of  a  pure  and  catholic  church  accord- 
ing to  his  own  ideal,  Laud  did  not  hesitate  to 
encourage  in  the  king  those  absolute  principles, 
which,  if  he  had  prevailed,  instead  of  the  Parlia- 
ment, would  have  been  fatal  to  the  liberties  of 
the  English  people."  (Schaff-Herzog  Encyclo- 
paedia, Vol.  IL,  pp.  1284,  1285). 

Under  such  conditions  the  Baptists,  the  most 
despised  of  all  the  people  of  England,  could  not 
be  expected  to  preserve  records. 

Their  doctrines  were  misrepresented  and  ma- 
ligned.    Here  is  a  sample: 

"  To  these  doctrines  you  may  join  their  prac- 
tice. The  seditious  pamphlets,  the  tumultuous 
rising  of  rude  multitudes  threatening  blood  and 
destruction;  the  preaching  of  the  cobblers,  felt- 
makers,  tailors,  grooms  and  women;  the  choosing 
of  any  place  for  God's  service  but  the  church;  the 
night-meetings  of  naked  men  and  women;  the 
licentiousness  of  spiritual  marriages  without  legal 
form;  these  things  if  they  be  not  looked  into  will 
bring  us  in  time  to  community  of  wives,  commu- 
nity of  goods,  and  destruction  of  all."  (A  Short 
History  of  the  Anabaptists  of  High  and  Low  Ger- 
many, pp.  55,  56.  London,  1642). 

It  is  to  be  observed,  however,  that  very  soon 


102  DID   THEY   DIP  ? 

after  there  was  liberty  of  conscience,  or  rather 
toleration,  some  Calvinistie  Baptist  Churches  of 
London  adopted  one  of  the  most  famous  Confes- 
sions of  Faith  in  the  world.  It  stands  only  second 
to  the  Westminster  Confession  in  importance 
among  the  Dissenting  Churches  of  England.  For- 
mulas of  doctrines  like  those  contained  in  this 
confession  are  matters  of  growth.  The  presump- 
tion is  that  these  doctrines  had  long  lived  in  the 
hearts  of  these  people  before  they  were  expressed 
in  this  formal  manner.  There  is  no  indication 
from  this  confession  and  its  history  of  any  change 
of  mind  on  the  subject  of  baptism.  There  is  not 
a  trace  of  information,  from  friend  or  foe,  that 
during  the  adoption  of  this  confession  there 
was  any  discussion  on  the  subject  of  dipping.  We 
know  that  the  Presbyterians,  in  their  assembly, 
were  badly  divided  on  the  subject  of  dipping. 
But  if  there  were  such  dissensions  among  the 
Baptists  it  is  passing  strange  that  we  have  no  inti- 
mation of  them,  nor  were  there  any  protests. 
These  seven  churches  presented  this  as  their  unan- 
imous opinion  to  Parliament,  and  published  it 
broadcast  to  the  world.  The  presumption  is  alto- 
gether in  favor  of  the  supposition  that  the  Bap- 
tists had  long  been  immersionists,  and  that  this 
was  the  honest  expression  of  their  sentiments,  and 
it  will  take  powerful  arguments,  which  have  not 
been  presented,  to  set  aside  these  convictions. 

I  give  the  XL.  Article  of  the  "Confession  of 
Faith  of  those  Churches  which  are  commonly 
(though  falsely)  called  Anabaptists:" 

**  That  the  way  and  manner  of  dispensing  this 


THE   BAPTISTS   OF    164I.  103 

ordinance  is  dipping  or  plunging  the  body  under 
water;  it  being  a  signe,  must  answer  the  thing 
signified,  which  is,  that  interest  the  Saints  have  in 
the  death,  burial  and  resurrection  of  Christ:  and 
that  as  certainly  as  the  body  is  buried  under 
water,  and  rises  again,  so  certainly  shall  the  bodies 
of  the  Saints  be  raised  by  the  power  of  Christ  in 
the  day  of  the  resurrection,  to  reigne  with  Christ." 

(P.  20). 

There  is  a  note  appended,  as  follows: 
"  The  word  Baptizo  signifies  to   dip  or  plunge 
yet  so  as   convenient  garments  be  both  upon  the 
administrator  and  subject,  with  all  modesty." 

It  is  necessary  for  Dr.  Whitsitt  to  prove  that 
these  eight  Baptist  Churches  of  London  that 
signed  the  confession  of  1644  and  the  54  Baptist 
Churches  in  England  that  Neal  and  other  authors 
mention  all  originated  with  John  Smyth  or  with 
the  Jessey  Church.  This  has  never  been  proved, 
and  Dr.  Whitsitt  attempts  no  proof.  If  the  Jessey 
records  are  a  forgery,  as  I  think,  and  if  John 
Smyth  was  immersed,  there  is  absolutely  no  foun- 
dation for  this  theory.  If  I  should  admit  the 
authenticity  of  the  Jessey  Church  records,  which 
1  do  not,  and  that  John  Smyth  was  sprinkled, 
of  which  there  is  not  a  line  of  proof,  even  then  Dr. 
Whitsitt's  case  is  in  no  wise  made  out.  He  must 
prove  that  every  one  of  these  churches  originated 
from  one  or  the  other  of  these  sources.  The  one 
which  did  not  so  originate  might  have  practiced 
immersion,  and  as  Dr.  Whitsitt  has  affirmed  a  uni- 
versal negative  this  would  be  fatal  to  his  argu- 
ment. As  a  matter  of  fact,  he  has  not  proved  that 


104  DID   THEY    DIP  ? 

even  one  of  the  London  churches  had  such  an 
origin,  much  less  any  of  the  other  churches  of 
England. 

But  we  have  positive  testimony  against  this 
theory.  William  Kififin,  who  certainly  knew  de- 
clared: "  It  is  well  known  to  many,  and  especi- 
ally TO  OURSELVES,  THAT  OUR  CONGREGATIONS 
WERE     ERECTED    AND    FRAMED   ACCORDING    TO     THE 

RULE  OF  Christ,  before  we  heard  of  any 
REFORMATION."  As  this  was  Written  in  1645,  ^^ 
one  can  doubt  that  Kififin  was  an  immersionist, 
and  this  statement  puts  the  question  forever  at 
rest. 

As  far  back  as  1589  Some,  who  wrote  at  that 
date,  declares  there  were  Anabaptist  Churches  in 
London.  They  doubtless  had  existed  long  before 
this.     The  words  of  Some  are: 

**To  preach  without  an  external  calling,  is  Ana- 
baptisticall.  The  consequents  of  such  preaching 
are  the  deprauing  of  the  holy  scriptures,  abusing 
of  the  Auditors,  disturbing  both  of  Church  and 
commonwealth.  The  Anabaptisticall  conuenticles 
in  London,  and  other  places,  are  sufficient  proof 
of  this."     (Chapter  7). 

These  Anabaptists  of  whom  Some  was  writing 
were  not  Dutch  or  Germans,  but  native  born. 
Some  says: 

"  If  any  shall  reply,  that  many  Papists,  Ana- 
baptists, etc.,  haue  bene  bredde  in  our  Vniuersi- 
ties:  my  answere  is,  that  the  goodliest  gardens 
haue  some  weedes  in  them.  Cham  was  in  Noahs 
arke,  as  well  as  Sem;  Ismael  in  Abrahams  house, 
as  wel  as    Isaac:  Judas  in  Christes  companye   as 


THE   BAPTISTS   OF    164I.  105 

well  as  Peter:  and  yet  Noahs  arke,  Abrahams 
house,  and  Christes  companie  were  singularlie  to 
bee  accounted  of.  The  wheate  field  may  not  be 
destroyed,  because  of  the  tares:  Nor  the  vine,  be- 
cause of  a  few  wilde  grapes;  nor  the  garden,  be- 
cause of  the  weedes.  The  tares,  wilde  grapes,  and 
weedes,  are  wisely  to  be  remoued  by  the  husband- 
man and  gardener,"  etc. 

But  I  have  still  other  testimony  as  to  the 
origin  of  these  churches.  Hanserd  Knollys  knew 
all  about  the  origin  of  these  London  churches. 
He  was  intimately  connected  with  the  Baptists,  or 
Anabaptists. 

I  have  before  me  a  book,  which  seems  to  have 
escaped  the  eye  of  all  other  writers  on  this  sub- 
ject. It  knows  nothing  about  Blount  nor  Black- 
lock,  nor  the  trip  to  Holland,  nor  the  introduction 
of  immersion.  It  tells  in  simple  language  the 
story  of  the  planting  of  these  London  Baptist 
Churches  in  the  days  of  persecution  before  1641. 
The  title  of  this  book  is:  *  A  Moderate  Answer 
Unto  Dr.  Bastwick's  Book  Called  *  Independency 
Not  God's  Ordinance.'  Wherein  is  declared  the 
manner  how  some  Churches  in  this  city  were 
gathered,  and  upon  what  tearmes  their  members 
were  admitted;  that  so  both  the  Dr.  and  the 
Reader  may  judge  how  near  some  Believers  who 
walk  together  in  the  Fellowship  of  the  Gospell 
do  come  in  their  practice  to  the  Apostolicall  rules 
which  are  propounded  by  the  Dr.  as  God's 
Method  in  gathering  Churches  and  Admitting 
Members.  By  Hanserd  Knollys.  London,  1645." 
Of  course,  such  a  book  is  authoritative  and  worth 
a  thousand  guesses.     Knollys  says: 


106  DID   THEY    DIP  ? 

"  I  shall  now  take  the  liberty  to  declare,  what 
I  know  by  mine  own  experience  to  be  the  prac- 
tice of  some  Churches  of  God  in  this  City.  That 
so  far  both  the  Dr.  and  the  Reader  may  judge 
how  near  the  Saints,  who  walk  in  the  fellowship 
of  the  Gospell,  do  come  to  their  practice,  to  these 
Apostolicall  rules  and  practice  propounded  by  the 
Dr.  as  God's  method  in  gathering  churches, 
and  admitting  Members,  I  say  that  I  know  by 
mine  own  experience  (having  walked  with  them), 
that  they  were  thus  gathered,  viz.:  Some  godly 
and  learned  men  of  approved  gifts  and  abilities 
for  the  Ministrie,  being  driven  out  of  the  Coun- 
tries where  they  lived  by  the  persecution  of  the 
Prelates,  came  to  sojourn  in  this  great  City,  and 
preached  the  word  of  God  both  publikely  and 
from  house  to  house,  and  daily  in  the  Temple, 
and  in  every  house  they  ceased  not  to  teach  and 
preach  Jesus  Christ:  and  some  of  them  have 
dwelt  in  their  own  hired  houses,  and  received 
all  that  came  in  unto  them,  preaching  the  King- 
dom of  God,  and  teaching  those  things  which 
concern  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  And  when  many 
sinners  were  converted  by  their  preaching  of  the 
Gospell,  some  of  them  believers,  consorted  with 
them,  and  of  professors  a  great  many,  and  of  the 
chief  women  not  a  few.  And  the  condition  which 
those  Preachers,  both  publikely  and  privately  pro- 
pounded to  the  people,  unto  whom  they  preached, 
upon  which  they  were  to  be  admitted  into  the 
Church  was  Faith,  Repentance,  and  Baptism,  and 
none  other.  And  whosoever  (poor  as  well  as 
rich,  bond  as  well  as  free,  servants  as   well  as 


THE    BAPTISTS  OF    164I.  lOT 

Masters),  did  make  a  profession  of  their  Faith 
in  Christ  Jesus,  and  would  be  baptized  with  water,, 
in  the  Name  of  the  Father,  Sonne,  and  Holy- 
Spirit,  were  admitted  Members  of  the  Church; 
but  such  as  did  not  believe,  and  would  not  be 
baptized,  they  would  not  admit  into  Church  com- 
munion. This  hath  been  the  practice  of  some 
Churches  of  God  in  this  City,  without  urging  or 
making  any  particular  covenant  with  Members 
upon  admittance,  which  I  desire  may  be  examined 
by  the  Scripture  cited  in  the  Margent,  and  then 
compared  with  the  Doctor's  three  conclusions 
from  the  same  Scriptures,  whereby  it  may  appear 
to  the  judicious  Reader,  how  near  the  Churches 
some  of  them  come  to  the  practice  of  the  Apostles 
rule,  and  practice  of  the  primitive  churches,  both  in 
gathering  and  admitting  members."    (Pp.  24,  25). 

Nothing  can  be  plainer  than  that  these  London 
churches  were  not  organized  on  the  plan  indi- 
cated by  Dr.  Whitsitt. 

As  to  the  practice  of  dipping  among  the  Ana- 
baptists of  England  there  has  been  no  difference 
of  opinion  among  historians,  till  of  late,  a  few  con- 
troversial writers  have  affirmed  that  they  practiced 
sprinkling.  I  will  let  the  historians  speak  for 
themselves. 

Neal,  in  whose  hands  the  Baptists  placed  their 
gathered  material  for  a  history,  says: 

"  Their  confession  consisted  of  52  articles  and 
is  strictly  Calvinistical  in  the  doctrinal  part,  and 
according  to  the  independent  discipline,  it  con- 
fines the  subjects  of  baptism  to  grown  Christians 
and  the  mode  to  immersion.     The  advocates  of 


108  DID   THEY    DIP  ? 

this  doctrine  were  for  the  most  part  of  the 
rrieanest  of  the  people;  their  preachers  were 
generally  illiterate  and  went  about  the  country 
making  proselytes  of  all  who  would  submit  to 
immersion.  *  *  *  The  people  of  this  per- 
suasion were  most  exposed  to  the  public  resent- 
ments, because  they  would  hold  communion  with 
none  but  such  as  had  been  dipped.  All  must 
pass  under  the  cloud  before  they  could  be 
received  into  their  churches;  and  the  same 
narrow  spirit  prevails  too  generally  among  them 
to  this  day."  (History  of  the  Puritans,  Vol.  III., 
pp.  174-176). 

Prof.  Vedder  says: 

"Furthermore,  though  this  Confession  is  the 
first  to  define  baptism  in  explicit  terms  as  immer- 
sion, this  was  not  a  novel  idea  among  the  Bap- 
tists. Indeed  the  practice  of  immersion  had  not 
yet  died  out  of  the  English  Church,  though  it 
was  rapidly  becoming  uncommon."  (Short  His- 
tory of  the  Baptists,  p.  116). 

And  again  he  says: 

"  Dr.  Whitsitt,  as  I  pointed  out  in  my  article  in 
the  Examiner  some  weeks  ago,  seemed  to  me  to 
make  a  broader  inference  than  his  facts  warranted 
when  he  said  in  effect  that  no  English  Baptists 
immersed  before  1641.  I  think  he  will  see  that 
he  must  modify  that  statement."  (  Western  Recorder, 
Sept.  24,  1896). 

The  Rev.  W.  H.  Pinnock,  LL.  D,,  an  Episco- 
palian, in  speaking  of  the  English  Anabaptists  of 
this  whole  period,  says: 

"  They  rebaptized  their  disciples,  whence  their 


THE   BAPTISTS   OF    164I.  109 

name;  and  taught  that  the  baptism  of  infants  was 
invalid;  they  also  rejected  aspersion,  holding  im- 
mersion to  be  the  only  valid  form  of  baptism. 
From  these  sprang  shortly  after  the  sect  of  the 
Baptists."  (History  of  the  Reformation  of  the 
English  Church,  p.  153.     London,  1857). 

Henry  M.  Mason,  M.  A.,  says: 

"The  Baptists  of  England  were  derived  from, 
and  originally  adopted  the  doctrine  of,  the  Ger- 
man and  Dutch  Anabaptists.  They  declined, 
however,  in  process  of  time,  from  the  principles 
of  their  ancestors,  and  hold,  in  common  with 
them,  only  the  administration  of  baptism  by  im- 
mersion and  the  refusal  of  that  rite  to  any  but 
adults,"     (A  Compend  of  Ecclesiastical  History, 

P-  337)- 

J.  B.  Marsden,  M.  A.,  says: 

"Baptists,  or  Anabaptists,  so  called  (from  Gr:.a?ia, 
again,  and  baptizo,  to  wash  or  plunge)  because 
they  again  baptize  those  adults  who,  in  their  in- 
fancy, have  once  received  baptism.  But  they 
deny  the  validity  of  infant  baptism  (on  which  ac- 
count they  are  also  termed,  sometimes,  Anti- 
paedo-Baptists),  and,  therefore,  reject  the  charge 
of  anabaptism,  and  consider  the  word  itself  re- 
proachful. By  the  older  writers  they  are  occa- 
sionally designated  Cata-Baptists,  an  epithet  of 
nearly  similar  import.  They  themselves  adopt 
the  name  of  Baptists. 

"They  differ  from  other  Christian  Churches  upon 
two  points:  First,  as  to  the  mode  in  which  bap- 
tism ought  to  be  administered;  and,  secondly,  as 
to  the  persons  who  are  qualified  for  the  reception 


110  DID  THEY   DIP  ? 

of  the  rite.  Of  these,  however,  the  second  is  by 
far  the  most  important  question."  ( History  of  the 
Christian  Churches  and  Sects  from  the  Earliest 
Ages  of  Christianity,  Vol.  I.,  p.  'j'j). 

Robert  Howard,  M.  A.,  says: 

"In  point  of  church  polity,  the  Baptists  re- 
mained Independents.  But  they  held  that  they 
were  justified  in  forming  themselves  into  a  sepa- 
rate communion  on  these  grounds:  First,  for  the 
stricter  maintenance  of  Calvinistic  doctrines; 
secondly,  for  the  exercise  of  a  stricter  discipline; 
and,  thirdly,  for  the  practice  of  a  mode  of  baptism 
in  stricter  accordance  with  the  words  of  Script- 
ure and  the  practice  of  the  Apostolic  age."  (The 
Church  of  England  and  Other  Religious  Com- 
munions, p.  42). 

David  Bogue,  D.  D.,  and  James  Bennett,  D.  D., 
say: 

*'  It  is  sufficiently  manifest  by  their  name,  that 
this  denomination  of  Dissenters  differ  from  others 
on  the  subject  of  baptism.  They  believe,  that  the 
original  word,  which  the  New  Testament  employs 
to  express  this  rite,  conveys  the  idea  of  immer- 
sion, or  plunging  the  whole  body  under  water: 
hence  they  conclude  that  sprinkling,  affusion,  or 
pouring  of  water,  is  not  baptizing.  To  this  distin- 
guishing sentiment  and  practice  concerning  the 
mode,  they  add  one  which  relates  to  the  proper 
subjects  of  baptism."  (The  History  of  Dissenters, 
Vol.  I.,  p.  183). 

W.  J.  E.  Bennett,  vicar  of  Froome-Selwood, 
says : 

"Wherein  then,  proceeding  from  this,  do  the 


THE   BAPTISTS   OF    164I.  Ill 

Anabaptists  raise  their  cry  of  objection  to  the 
Church,  and  separate  from  her?  They  raise  it 
upon  this  ground,  that  it  is  not  lawful  in  any  case 
to  baptize  otherwise  than  by  immersion.  The 
Anabaptists  say,  all  persons  ought  to  be  im- 
mersed. The  Church  says  the  same;  but  the 
Church  goes  on  to  say,  but  in  case  of  children 
being  weak,  it  shall  suffice  to  pour  the  water.  No, 
rejoin  the  Anabaptists;  it  does  not  suffice.  Both 
agree  upon  the  principle.  But  the  one  separates 
from  the  other  on  the  ground  of  permitting  a  cer- 
tain exception.  The  whole  question  then  narrows 
itself  into  this:  Is  it  permissible  to  baptize  by 
pouring  water,  or  does  such  an  act  invalidate 
baptism  altogether?  In  other  words,  is  it  as  much 
the  essence  of  the  baptism,  that  it  should  be  per- 
formed by  immersion,  as  it  is  that  the  water 
should  be  used  at  all?"  (The  Church's  Broken 
Unity.     Anabaptism,  Vol.  II.,  p.  63). 

Mr.  Bennett  devotes  large  space  to  a  general 
discussion  of  the  Anabaptists,  going  very  fully 
into  their  history  and  doctrines,  but  he  nowhere 
intimates  that  any  of  them  ever  practiced  sprink- 
ling. 

Masson  says: 

"  In  spite  of  much  persecution,  continued  even 
after  the  Long  Parliament  met,  the  Baptists  of 
these  congregations  propagated  their  opinions 
with  such  zeal  that  by  1644  the  sect  had  attained 
considerably  larger  dimensions.  In  that  year 
they  counted  seven  leading  congregations  in 
London,  and  forty-seven  in  the  rest  of  England, 
besides  which  they  had  many  adherents  in  the 


112  DID   THEY    DIP  ? 

army.  Although  all  sorts  of  impieties  were 
attributed  to  them  on  hearsay,  they  differed  in 
reality  from  the  Independents  mainly  on  the  sub- 
ject of  baptism.  They  objected  to  the  baptism 
of  infants,  and  they  thought  immersion  or  dipping 
under  water  the  proper  mode  of  baptism;  except 
in  these  points  and  what  they  might  involve  they 
were  substantially  at  one  with  the  Congregation- 
alists.  This  they  made  clear  by  the  publication, 
in  1644,  of  a  Confession  of  their  Faith  in  52 
Articles,  a  document  which,  by  its  orthodoxy  in 
all  essential  matters,  seems  to  have  shamed  the 
more  candid  of  their  opponents."  (Life  of  John 
Milton,  Vol.  II.,  p.  585). 

W.  M.  Blackburne,  D.  D.,  Methodist,  says: 

"  The  Baptists  were  differentiated  from  the 
Dissenters  early  in  the  seventeenth  century  by 
holding  that  immersion  is  essential  to  baptism, 
and  that  believers  and  not  infants  are  the  proper 
subjects  of  it.  They  rebaptized  believers  who  had 
not  been  immersed."  (History  of  the  Christian 
Church,  p.  622). 

Alexander  Balfour,  Edinburgh,  gives  a  very  full 
account  of  the  Baptists  and  Anabaptists  of  Eng- 
land.    He  says: 

"The  Particular  Baptists  are  those  who  enter- 
tain no  more  of  the  tenets  of  the  ancient  Anabap- 
tists than  the  administration  of  the  ordinance  of 
baptism  by  immersion  and  the  refusal  of  it  to  in- 
fants; in  everything  else  they  resemble  the  relig- 
ion of  other  Calvinists."  (Anti-Paedobaptism 
Unveiled;  or,  An  Inquiry  into  the  Origin  and 
Progress  of  the  Baptists,  p.  87). 


THE   BAPTISTS   OF    164I.  113 

Dr.  W.  PI.  King,  London,  who  has  made  a  very 
extensive  investigation  of  the  pamphlets  in  the 
King  George  collection,  says: 

"In  connection  with  this  controversy  I  have 
carefully  examined  the  titles  of  the  pamphlets  in 
the  first  three  volumes  of  this  catalogue,  more  than 
7,000  in  number,  and  have  read  every  pamphlet 
which  has  seemed  by  its  title  to  refer  to  the  sub- 
ject of  baptism,  or  the  opinions  and  practices  of 
Baptists,  with  this  result:  that  I  can  affirm,  with 
the  most  unhesitating  confidence,  that  in  these 
volumes  there  is  not  a  sejiteiice  or  a  hi?it  from  which 
it  can  be  inferred  that  the  Baptists  generally,  or  any 
section  of  them,  or  even  any  individual  Baptist,  held 
any  other  opinio?i  than  that  immersion  is  the  only  trne 
and  Scriptural  method  of  baptism,  either  before  the 
year  1641  or  after  it.  It  must  be  remembered  that 
these  are  the  earliest  pamphlets,  and  cover  the 
period  from  the  year  1640  to  1646."  {The  West- 
ern Recorder,  June  4,  1896). 

Dr.  Schaff  says: 

"The  mode  of  baptism  was  no  point  of  dispute 
between  Anabaptists  and  Pedobaptists  in  the  six- 
teenth century.  The  Roman  Church  provides 
for  immersion  and  pouring  as  equally  valid.  Lu- 
ther preferred  immersion  and  prescribed  it  in  his 
baptismal  service.  In  England  immersion  was 
the  7iormal  mode  down  to  the  middle  of  the  seven- 
teenth century.  It  w^as  adopted  by  the  English 
and  American  Baptists  as  the  07ily  mode."  ( His- 
tory of  the  Christian  Church,  Vol.  VII.,  p.  79). 

He  then  goes  on  to  discuss  the  Anabaptists  of 
the  Continent,  to  which  we  refer  in  another  place. 

8 


114  DID   THEY   DIP  ? 

J.  Rawson  Lumby  says: 

"The  first  notice  of  the  Anabaptists  (after- 
wards known  as  Baptists)  as  a  distinct  commun- 
ion is  about  the  time  of  Luther.  The  sect  had 
its  origin  in  Germany,  and,  as  its  name  implies, 
differed  from  the  other  reformed  churches  in  the 
opinions  held  by  its  members  on  the  subject  of 
baptism.  The  Anabaptists  maintained  that  only 
those  who  personally  professed  their  faith  in 
Christ  were  proper  recipients  of  that  sacrament, 
and  they  also  considered  that  baptism  should  be 
administered  not  by  sprinkling,  but  by  immersion. 
In  most  of  the  other  points  of  their  teaching  the 
Anabaptists  were  exactly  at  one  with  the  Inde- 
pendents, but  they  did  not  make  Independency 
the  most  prominent  feature  of  their  doctrines." 
(Compendium  of  English  Church  History,  p.  16). 

Mosheim,  one  of  the  oldest  and  most  reliable 
historians,  has  much  to  say  of  the  Anabaptists. 
He  says: 

"  The  origin  of  the  sect,  which,  from  their  repeti- 
tion of  the  baptism  received  in  other  communities, 
are  called  Anabaptists  but  who  are  also  denominat- 
ed Me?i7W7iites,  from  the  celebrated  man  to  whom 
they  owe  a  large  share  of  their  present  pros- 
perity, is  involved  in  much  obscurity."  He  calls 
them  "  Catabaptists "  or  "  iiicurable  heretics^ 
He  then  goes  on  to  say  of  the  English  Baptists: 
*'  They  have  almost  nothing  in  common  with  the 
other  Anabaptists  except  they  baptize  only  adults 
and  immerse  totally  in  the  water  whenever  they 
administer  the  ordinance."  (Institutes  of  Eccle- 
siastical History,  Vol.  HI.,  pp.  198-221). 


THE   BAPTISTS   OF    164I.  115 

E.  T.  Hiscox,  D.  D,,  the  scholarly  Baptist 
author,  says: 

**  It  is  precisely  as  I  had  supposed  and  had 
said  and  publicly  stated,  namely,  that  Dr.  Whit- 
sitt  was  mistaken  as  to  his  sources  of  information 
in  the  famous  pamphlets.  It  is  no  sin  to  be  mis- 
taken; but  this  mistake  will  doubtless  somewhat 
shake  public  confidence  in  Dr.  Whitsitt's  reliabil- 
ity as  a  student  of  history.  And  the  peculiar  and 
unaccountable  way  in  which  the  Doctor  has 
reached  this  point  through  an  Encyclopaedia  and 
a  Pedobaptist  journal,  rather  than  through  Baptist 
channels,  and  without  conference  with  Baptist 
brethren,  makes  his  friends  marvel,  and  is  yet  to 
be  explained."     ( Western  Recorder,  June  i8,  1896). 

Prof.  T.  Harwood  Pattison,  Rochester  Theolog- 
ical Seminary,  says:  "There  is  in  the  article  a 
good  deal  more  of  this  conjectural  history.  Dr. 
Whitsitt  seems  sometimes  to  be  indebted  to  his 
imagination  for  his  facts."  (The  London  Freeman, 
April  17,  1896). 

Dr.   George   C.  Lorimer,  who  has  given   much 

attention  to  Baptist  history,  said  in  an  address 

Sept.    14,   1896,  before  the   students   of  Newton 

Theological  Institution: 

I  insist  that  it  is  due  our  Baptist  Churches  that  their 
action  on  the  world's  progress  should  not  be  ignored.  As  a 
rule,  they  do  not  receive  the  recognition  they  deserve.  Dr. 
Dexter  in  his  "True  Story  of  John  Smythe  "  has,  let  us 
believe  unintentionally,  put  them  in  an  entirely  false  hght; 
and  his  representation  that  Edward  Barber  originated  the 
practice  of  immersion  in  England,  and  that  before  the 
publication  of  his  book  (1641)  the  Baptists  poured  and 
sprinkled,  is,  to  put  it  mildly,  incorrect.  I  have  just 
returned  from  the  British  Museum,  where  I  went  over  the 
documents  which  are  supposed  to  substantiate  such  a  view, 
and  I  solemnly  declare  that  no  such  evidence  exists.     It 


116  DID   THEY   DIP  ? 

cannot  be  made  out  from  the  pamphlets  of  Edward  Barber, 
Praise-God  Barebones,  Dr.  Featly,  or  of  those  signed  A.  R., 
or  by  Thomas  Killcops.  In  the  title  page  of  the  first  we 
have  the  design  of  the  treatise  thus  announced:  "Of 
Baptism,  or  dipping,  wherein  is  clearly  shewed  that  the 
Lord  Christ  ordained  dipping  for  those  only  that  profess 
repentance  and  faith."  Here  is  the  key  to  the  whole  con- 
troversy, and  to  the  misapprehensions  that  exist.  These 
writers  were  either  assailing  or  defending  infant  baptism, 
and  the  newness  of  the  ordinance  to  Englishmen  was  not 
the  mode  but  the  subject;  though  Dexter  observes  this  by 
introducing  into  one  of  the  citations  the  word  "  dipping  " 
which  is  not  in  the  original.  Dr.  Featly,  in  his  rancorous 
pamphlet  in  which  he  reports  a  controversy  with  the  Ana- 
baptists held  at  Southwark  in  1642,  admits  that  they  im- 
merse, and  writes  about  it  not  as  something  new,  and 
declares  that  they  have  been  showing  their  "  shining  head 
and  speckled  skin  "  near  his  residence  for  more  than  twenty 
years. 

I  accuse  no  man  of  misrepresentation,  but  I  am  sure 
many  rush  to  a  conclusion  and  pain  multitudes  of  good  peo- 
ple by  their  garbled  quotations.  I,  at  least,  may  be  allowed 
to  express  my  dissent:  The  Baptists  of  Engla7id  did  im- 
merse before  1641,  even  as  they  did  011  the  Continent.  This 
I  claim  on  the  authority  of  the  George  III.  pamphlets  in  the 
British  Museum,  and  from  the  fact  that  even  the  Church  of 
England,  in  young  King  Edward's  time,  directed  that  babes 
should  be  dipped.  These  humble  people  deserve  to  be 
faithfully  dealt  with,  for  they  have  been  history  makers  of 
no  mean  importance.  They  dared  the  face  of  kings  and 
taught  the  world  the  right  of  men  to  worship  God  according 
to  the  dictates  of  conscience;  they  turned  their  face  against 
oppression  of  every  kind,  and  were  the  harbingers  of  this 
age. 

Dr.  Joseph  Angus,  President  of  Regents  Park 
College,  London,  England,  a  very  scholarly  Bap- 
tist, says: 

During  this  period,  it  is  objected,  very  little  is  said  about 
immersion,  and  the  silence  of  the  writers  on  the  mode  is  said 
to  be  deeply  significant.  But  it  is  overlooked  that  in  that 
age  immersion  was  the  generally  accepted  mode  of  baptism 
in  England.  The  Prayer  Book  has  all  along  ordered  the 
child  "  to  be  dipped  warily  "  in  the  water.  The  practice  of 
dipping  was  familiar  in  the  days  of  Henry  VIII.,  and  both 
Edward  VI.  and  Queen  Elizabeth  were  dipped  in  their 
childhood.  In  that  century  it  was  not  necessary  to  lecture 
on  the  meaning  of  the  word,  or  to  insist  on  the  mode  of  bap- 


THE   BAPTISTS   OF    164I.  117 

tizing,  which  is  still  described  in  the  English  service  as 
"  dipping."  I  remember  a  clergyman  who  resolved  to  carry 
out  the  instructions  of  the  Rubric.  The  child  was  stripped 
and  dipped.  "  I  did  it  once,"  he  reported,  "  but  I  resolved 
never  to  do  it  again!"  Once  change  a  positive  institution  in 
one  particular,  and  the  whole  may  be  robbed  of  its  force  and 
beauty. 

That  there  was  no  such  delay  in  forming  Baptist  Churches 
as  our  American  friends  have  supposed,  is  proved  by  the 
dates  of  the  formation  of  a  number  of  them.  Churches  were 
formed,  chapels  built  and  doctrines  defined  long  before 
1641,  and  others,  down  to  the  end  of  that  century,  owed 
nothing  probably  to  the  discussions  of  that  year. 

The  following  churches  formed  in  the  years  mentioned 
still  remain:  Braintree,  Eythorne,  Sutton,  all  in  1550;  War- 
rington, 1522;  Crowle  and  Ep worth,  both  1597;  Bridgewater, 
Oxford,  and  Sadmore,  1600;Bristol  (Broadmead),  1640;  King, 
Stanley,  Newcastle,  Kilmington  (Devon),  Bedford,  Sutton, 
Cirencester,  Commercial-street  (London),  Lincoln,  Dorches- 
ter, and  Hamsterley,  1633;  Lyme  Regis,  Chipping  Sodbury, 
Upottery,  Boston,  etc.,  1650  to  1658. 

Many  others  that  belong  to  similar  dates  have  since 
become  extinct  through  change  of  population  and  other 
causes.  Most  of  these  churches  hold  the  common  faith,  and 
most  of  them  have  received  it  without  special  reference  to 
the  creed  of  1641.  Dates  and  particulars  of  more  churches 
may  be  seen  in  any  recent  number  of  the  Baptist  Handbook^ 
published  by  the  Baptist  Union. 

But  there  is  another  kind  of  evidence  even  more  deci- 
sive, showing  that  "the  immersion  of  believers"  was  the 
common  faith  and  practice  of  our  fathers.  I  refer  to  the 
books  published  by  them  and  against  them  in  the  century 
to  which  1641  belongs. 

The  unanimous  testimony  of  these  historians  is 
a  powerful  argument  for  dipping.  Commencing 
with  the  earlier  portion  of  the  seventeenth  cent- 
ury, and  to  some  extent  during  the  sixteenth 
century,  a  great  controversy  sprung  up  in  Eng- 
land on  the  subject  of  baptism.  For  the  most 
part,  infant  baptism  was  the  question  involved. 
Beginning  with  1641  to  the  end  of  the  century,  I 
suppose  fifty  times  more  was  written  on  the  sub- 
ject of  infant  baptism  than  there  was  on  the  sub- 
ject of  dipping.     Frequently   whole  books  were 


118  DID   THEY   DIP  ? 

written  on  baptism,  and  dipping  was  not  men- 
tioned, and  often  in  these  books  on  infant  baptism 
dipping  was  taken  for  granted.  Usually  when  the 
act  of  baptism  was  discussed  it  had  reference  to 
infant  sprinkling  as  an  innovation.  Waiving  at 
present,  for  special  discussion,  some  of  the  strong- 
est statements  in  favor  of  immersion,  I  shall  refer 
to  certain  writers  who  lived  in  those  times,  in 
proof  that  dipping  was  received  among  the  Bap- 
tists as  the  act  of  baptism.  This  will  appear  from 
the  writings  of  both  Baptists  and  Pedobaptists. 

The  first  book  I  quote  is  "  An  Anabaptist  Ser- 
mon which  was  preached  at  the  Re-baptizing  of  a 
Brother  at  the  new  or  holy  Jordan,  as  they  call  it, 
near  Bow,  or  Hackney  River;  together  with  the 
manner  how  they  used  to  perform  their  Anabap- 
tisticall  Ceremonies.  London,  1643."  It  is  worth 
while  to  note  that  this  report  was  written  by  an 
enemy,  who  refers  to  the  Anabaptists  as  "  they." 
It  will  also  be  noted  that  it  describes  a  past  event, 
and  that  the  baptism  was  at  some  considerable 
time  before  1643,  for  the  writer  says  that  it  was 
"the  manner  they  use  to  perform  their  Anabap- 
tisticall  ceremonies."  This  baptism  by  dipping 
was  not  a  new  thing,  according  to  this  enemy,  for 
it  was  their  "manner"  or  custom.  Indeed,  he 
mentions  former  persecutions  which  undoubtedly 
took  place  before  1641.     The  account  says: 

"  Some  say  our  Religion  is  cleane  contrary  to 
the  Protestant  profession,  but  such  are  cleane  out 
of  the  way,  but  if  we  should  be  persecuted  againe 
by  bishops  as  formerly  we  have  bin,  and  would 
run  cleane  out  of  England  unto  Amsterdam,  but 


THE   BAPTISTS   OF    164I.  119 

we  are  all  cleane  people,  full  of  purity  of  the 
Spirit;  our  sins  are  but  motes  in  God's  eyes,  but 
our  brothers  sinnes  are  beams  that  have  so  put 
out  the  sight  of  his  Divine  Justice,  that  He  can- 
not or  will  not  see  our  small  iniquities." 

He  takes  dipping  as  a  matter  of  course.  He 
says: 

"  For  it  is  impossible  to  wash  them  white  or 
cleane;  but  wee  that  are  brethren  of  the  elect; 
we  may  wash  ourselves  in  a  River  from  the  spots 
of  our  Carnality  in  every  River,  as  Bow  River, 
Hackney  River,  and  other  Rivers  are  to  us  a  cleane 
Jordan,  wherein  we  may  baptize  one  another  as 
we  meane  to  do  this  day  our  late  lost  brother." 

(P.  2). 

We  have  a  book  before  us,  "The  Summe  of  a 
Conference  at  Terling  in  Essex.  Januarie  ii.  1643," 
which  was  held  between  three  "ministers  "  and 
two  "  Catabaptists."  This  book  is  edited  by  John 
Stalham,  one  of  the  ministers.  He  says  of  the 
Anabaptists: 

**  The  Catabaptists  excuses,  that  the  chiefe  Re- 
spondent was  too  weake,  for  such  an  encounter. 
*  *  *  Secondly  then,  my  request  is:  That 
the  practice  of  Antiquitie  may  fully  be  cleared, 
and  laid  before  them:  what  it  was,  touching  this 
subject  of  Baptisme,  and  what  therein  was  agree- 
able to  the  rule  of  the  Scripture,  what  not,  for 
they  have  boasted  much;  as  if  they  had  all  An- 
tiquitie on  their  side."     (Pp.  4-7). 

The  Baptists  were  called  in  this  one-sided  dis- 
cussion Catabaptists,  or  dippers;  and  it  is  clear 
that  this  dipping  was  not  regarded  as  a  novelty. 


120  DID   THEY   DIP  ? 

because  it  is  nowhere  so  designated,  and  the  Ana- 
baptists "boasted"  that  "they  had  all  Antiquitie 
on  their  side." 

John  OUyffe,  Rector  of  Aimer,  1644,  says: 
"  Thus  I  hope  I  have  made  out  that  there  is  no 
necessity  of  baptizing  by  Dipping  to  be  proved 
by  Scripture.  And  nobody  pretends,  as  I  know, 
the  Necessity  of  any  particular  determinate." 
(A  Brief  Defence  of  Infant  Baptism,  with  an  Ap- 
pendix, wherein  is  shewed  that  it  is  not  necessary 
that  Baptism  should  be  administered  by  Dipping. 

p.  67). 

Then  he  gives  a  number  of  "inferences"  why 
he  thinks  sprinkling  may  be  sustained  against 
the  Anabaptists,  but  not  one  to  the  effect  that 
dipping  is  "  a  new  invention." 

Ch.  Blackwood,  1644,  was  a  Baptist.     He  says: 

"I  prove  the  proposition  that  the  Baptisme  of 
Christ  is  dipping,  three  waies: 

"  I.     From  the  Greek  lexicon. 

"  2.  From  the  difference  twixt  Baptizing  and 
Sprinkling  in  Scripture. 

"3.  That  Baptisme  signifies  no  other  thing  than 
Dipping,  appeares  from  the  proportion  and  lively 
resemblance  twixt  dipping  into  the  water  and 
rising  up  again;  Dipping  signifieth  death,  and 
Buriall  with  Christ,  and  rising  up  above  the  water, 
Resurrection  with  Christ.  Rom.  vi.  3,  4."  (The 
Storming  of  Antichrist,  pp.  i,  2). 

Blackwood  had  never  heard  of  dipping  as  a 
new  thing. 

Thomas  Edwards,  1645,  published  some  very 
•scandalous  books  against  the  Baptists.     They  are 


THE   BAPTISTS   OF    1641.  121 

full  of  bitterness.  While  some  of  the  statements 
are  infamous  they  demonstrate  that  the  Baptists 
were  dippers.  I  could  quote  many  places  from 
his  books  in  proof  of  this  declaration,  but  one  is 
sufficient.     Edwards  says: 

"  I  here  declare  myself,  that  I  could  wish  with 
all  my  heart  there  were  a  publike  Disputation, 
even  in  the  point  of  Paedobaptism  and  of  Dipping, 
between  some  of  the  Anabaptists  and  some  of 
our  Ministers;  and  had  I  an  interest  in  the  Houses 
to  prevaile  to  obtaine  it  (which  I  speak  not  as  to 
presume  of  any  such  power,  being  so  meane  and 
weak  a  man),  it  should  be  one  of  the  first  Petitions 
I  would  put  up  to  the  Honorable  Houses  for  a 
publike  Disputation,  as  was  at  Zurich,  namely, 
that  both  Houses  would  give  leave  to  the  Ana- 
baptists to  chuse  for  themselves  such  a  number 
of  their  ablest  men,  and  the  Assembly  leave  to 
chuse  an  equall  number  for  them,  and  that  by 
Authority  of  Parliament  publike  Notaries  sworne, 
might  be  appointed  to  write  down  all,  some  mem- 
bers of  both  Houses  present  to  see  to  the  Peace 
kept,  and  to  be  Judges  of  the  faire  play  and 
liberty  given  the  Anabaptists,  and  that  there 
might  be  severall  dayes  of  Disputation  leave 
to  the  utmost  given  the  Anabaptists  to  say 
what  they  could,  and  upon  such  faire  and  free  de- 
bates it  should  be  found  the  Anabaptists  to  be  in 
the  Truth,  then  the  Parliament  not  only  to  Toler- 
ate them,  but  to  Establish  and  settle  their  way 
throughout  the  whole  Kingdome,  but  if  upon  Dis- 
putation and  debate,  the  Anabaptists  should  be 
found  in  an  Error  (as  I  am  confident  they  would) 


122  DID   THEY   DIP  ? 

that  then  the  Parliament  should  forbid  all  Dip- 
ping, and  take  some  severe  course  with  all  Dip- 
pers, as  the  Senate  of  Zurich  did  after  the  ten 
severall  Disputations  allowed  the  Anabaptists." 
(The  Third  Part  of  Gangraena,  p.  177). 

Here  is  the  double  admission  that  the  Anabap- 
tists of  Zurich  and  of  England  were  dippers. 

John-  Brinsley,  1645,  violently  opposed  "that 
spreading  Gangrene  of  Anabaptism,  which,  unless 
timely  preuented,  may  prove  fatall  to  the  whole 
body  both  of  the  Church  and  State."  (The  Doc- 
trine and  Practice  of  Paedobaptism,  Asserted  and 
Vindicated,  preface).  Their  dipping  was  a  mat- 
ter of  course.     He  says  of  them: 

"The  maine  businesse  we  have  to  deale  with, 
and  that  which  I  chiefly  aimed  at,  when  I  fell  up- 
on this  subject,  is  touching  the  Baptisme  of  Infaiits ; 
whether  they,  or  any  of  them,  may  be  baptized. 
Here  the  Aiiabaptists  and  we  are  at  variance.  We 
allow  it  to  some;  they  deny  it  to  all.  Whence  it 
is  that  they  are  called  by  the  name  both  of  Ana- 
baptists and  Catabaptists ;  because  they  oppose  the 
Baptisme  of  all  Infants,  as  a  thing  not  onely  incon- 
venient, but  unlawful!;  and  in  case  any  of  them 
bee  baptized  in  their  infancie,  they  looke  upon 
that  Baptisme  as  a  nullity,  and  so  impose  upon 
them  a  Rebaptization  when  they  come  to  yeares 
of  discression."     (P.  9). 

Fredericke  Spanhenius,  1646,  wrote  a  history  of 
the  Anabaptists  from  1521  to  the  date  of  his  book. 
It  was  written  in  English  for  the  English  people. 
His  testimony  on  dipping  is  conclusive.  He 
says: 


THE   BAPTISTS   OF    164I.  123 

"And  I  shall  consider  this  division,  not  their 
opinions  alone,  which  all  the  Anabaptists  or  Cata- 
baptists  have  anciently  maintained,  or  which  all  of 
them  doe  maintaine  at  this  day;  but  those  also 
which  many  of  them,  or  at  least  some  of  them, 
have  anciently,  or  do  at  present  defend;  that  so 
the  partition  may  be  the  more  perfect,  and  that 
I  may  present  the  Reader  with  the  whole  body 
of  their  Errors,  which  they  have  also  erred,  and 
yet  do  erre."     (P.  27). 

Mr.  Richardson,  1647,  i^  ^is  reply  to  Featley, 
says: 

"  We  confess  that  when  any  one  is  to  be  rebap- 
tized  at  the  water's  side  the  administrator  goeth  to 
prayer  suitable  to  the  occasion,  and  after  both  go 
into  the  water  and  useth  the  words.  Matt.  28,  part 
of  the  19th  verse;  and  coming  forth  again  they  go 
to  prayer,  and  also  return  thanks  to  God."  (Some 
Brief  Considerations,  p.  4). 

John  Tombes,  B.  D.,  one  of  the  best  posted 
men  of  his  day,  says: 

'*  But  now  instead  of  it  [believer's  baptism], 
there  is  used  the  corrupt  innovation  of  infant 
sprinkling,  a  fruitless  or  rather  pernicious  rite 
to  the  souls  of  many  who  are  hardened  in  deadly 
presumption,  as  thereby  sufficiently  made  Chris- 
tians, and  of  all  influence  on  the  Church  of  God, 
by  taking  ignorant  and  unclean  persons,  even  the 
dregs  of  a  nation,  to  be  church  members.  *  *  * 
The  most  eminent  opposition  to  the  work  of  restor- 
ing the  right  use  of  water  baptism,  necessary 
to  the  orderly  forming  of  Christian  Churches, 
hath  been  by  their  learned   men,  who  maintain 


124  DID   THEY   DIP  ? 

still  by  their  agency,  and  colabored  pretenses, 
the  corrupt  innovations  of  infant  baptism."  ( Anti- 
Paidobaptism,  The  Introduction). 

Richard  Baxter  wrote  a  great  number  of  con- 
troversial books.  After  having  looked  over  the 
most  that  he  has  written  on  the  subject  of  bap- 
tism, I  find  that  he  was  violently  opposed  to  the 
Anabaptists;  that  he  opposed  their  dipping  in 
many  ways;  that  he  declared  that  it  was  a  breach 
of  the  commandments;  but  he  does  not  say  that 
it  was  a  new  thing.     He  says: 

•'  My  sixth  argument  shall  be  against  the  usual 
Tnanner  of  their  baptizing,  as  it  is  by  dipping  over 
head  in  a  river  or  other  cold  water.  This  is  known 
to  be  the  ordinary  way  of  the  Anabaptists." 
(Plain  Scripture  Proofs,  pp.   134-137). 

Richard  Carpenter,  1653,  wrote  "  The  Anabap- 
tist Washt  and  Washt,  and  Shrunk  in  the  Wash- 
ing," in  which  he  says: 

*'  Because  God  looked  upon  the  End  in  every 
practicall  touch  of  his  Power,  which  End  is  the 
cJiiefe  in  all  the  course,  and  the  first  ifitentiofially, 
though  executively  the  last:  and  Grace,  the  Gift 
of  God,  is  an  attendant  upon  the  71ii?ig  signified. 
And  therefore.  Baptism  given  with  a  threefold 
Emmersion,  doth  not  more  justify,  than  Baptism 
conferred  by  one  Immersion  or  Inspersion:  and 
yet  the  first  is  more  expresse  and  visible  signe 
of  Sacramentall  Grace ;  because  it  washeth  more 
perfectly;  and  furthermore,  adumbrates  the  most 
blessed  Trinity,  in  whose  most  blessed  Name  the 
Baptisme  is  given."     (Page  80). 

He  not  only  does  not  say  that  baptism   by  dip- 


THE   BAPTISTS   OF    164I.  125 

ping  was  a  new  thing,  that  the  former  Anabaptists 
were  sprinklers,  but  he  goes  so  far  as  to  admit 
their  baptism  to  be  most  impressive. 

John  Reading,  B.  D.,  1655,  in  his  book  "Ana- 
baptism  Routed,"  says: 

*'  A?iabaptists  not  only  deny  believers'  children 
baptism,  as  the  Pelagians  and  Donatists  did  of 
old,  but  affirm,  That  dipping  the  whole  body  under 
water  is  so  necessary,  that  without  it  none  are 
truly  baptized  (as  hath  been  said)."  (Pp.  171, 
172). 

John  Cragge,  1656,  gives  an  account  of  a  discus- 
sion between  Henry  Vaughn,  M.  A.,  and  John 
Tombes.  Tombes  boldly  claimed  sprinkling  an 
innovation  and  this  was  admitted  by  his  oppo- 
nent.    I  read: 

"  T.  Here  Mr.  Tombes  interrupted  me^  a?id  de- 
sired the  people  to  take  iiotice  of  my  ingenious  confes- 
sion, that  baptism  zvas  then  practiced  by  plunging.  He 
read  also  a  passage  out  of  Casaubons  Annot.  07i  the 
New  Test,  where  he  saith  that  baptizehi  denoteth 
a  plunging  of  the  whole  body,  etc.  Had  he  read  out 
the  passage  he  might  have  found  hozv  that  great 
scholar  affirmes  this  to  be  a  slender  Argument  agai?ist 
such  as  only  sprinkle  at  Baptisme :  for,  saith  he,  the 
vertue  and  efficacie  of  Baptisme  co?isistes  7iot  in  that, 
meaning  the  mariner  of  washing. 

"V.  I  shall  satisfie  the  audetours  herein  anon ;  in 
the  meantime  I  desire  Answer  to  my  Argument,  the 
Analogie  between  circumcision  and  baptism  being 
so  evident  in  this  place;  but  receiving  none,  I  ad- 
dressed myself  to  the  people,  according  to  prom- 
ise, saying,  that  indeed  it   seemed  to   me  that  for 


126  DID    THEY   DIP  ? 

some  centuries  of  years  that  baptism  was  practiced 
by  plunging.  For  sprinkling  was  first  brought  in 
use  by  occasion  of  the  Clinicks  (as  Cyprian  Epist. 
a  Magnum  states),  being  men  which  deferred  their 
baptism  till  some  extremitieof  sickness,  who  then 
in  such  case  were  only  sprinkled  with  water  lest 
the  plunging  of  their  bodies  might  over  offend 
them  in  that  feeble  desperate  condition. 

"T.  Here  take  notice  that  sprinkling  took  its  rise 
from  a  corrupt  custom. 

"V.  Though  plunging  be  confessed  the  most 
ancient  way,  yet  is  this  no  ground  for  this  over- 
uncharitable  speech  of  yours,  in  your  sermon 
yesterday:  That  our  baptism,  meaning  of  infants, 
and  by  sprinkling,  was  but  a  nullitie,  and  mock- 
ery, which  concludes  ourselves,  and  all  our  An- 
cestours,  even  all  in  the  Western  Church  for  1,500 
years,  under  damnation, 

"  For  the  Church  hath  power  upon  the  sight  of 
any  inconvenience,  and  for  order  and  decencies 
sake,  to  alter  the  circumstances  and  externalls  of 
any  ordinance."  (The  Arraignment  and  Convic- 
tion of  Anabaptism,  pp.  5,  6). 

If  immersion  had  been  so  recent  a  novelty  such 
a  discussion  could  hardly  have  taken  place  with- 
out some  mention  of  it. 

Denne  said  in  a  discussion  in  1656,  with  Mr. 
Gunning: 

"Dipping  of  infants  was  not  only  commanded 
by  the  Church  of  England,  but  also  generally 
practiced  in  the  Church  of  England  till  the  year 
1600;  yea,  in  some  places  it  was  practiced  until 
the  year  1641  until  the   fashion   altered,     *     *     * 


THE    BAPTISTS   OF    1641.  127 

I  can  show  Mr.  Baxter  an  old  man  in  London 
who  has  labored  in  the  Lord's  pool  many  years; 
converted  by  his  ministry  more  men  and  women 
than  Mr.  Baxter  hath  in  his  parish;  yea,  when  he 
hath  labored  a  great  part  of  the  day  in  preaching 
and  reasoning,  his  reflection  hath  been  (not  a 
sackporrit  or  a  candle),  but  to  go  into  the  water 
and  baptize  converts."  (A  Contention  for  Truth, 
p.  40). 

Here  are  fourteen  writers  who  were  all  alive  in 
164 1,  and  for  many  years  before,  who  wrote  in 
fifteen  years  and  less  of  that  date,  some  of  them 
only  a  year  or  two  away,  all  of  them  engaged  in 
the  controversy  and  wrote  books  or  tracts.  Some 
of  them  were  friends  and  some  of  them  were  ene- 
mies. They  were  thoroughly  posted  on  the  sub- 
ject and  several  of  them  engaged  in  public 
debates  on  the  subject.  It  is  certain  that  if 
immersion  had  been  an  invention  of  recent  date 
some  of  those  men  would  have  made  a  powerful 
point  against  their  opponents  on  this  subject. 
And  it  is  equally  certain  that  we  would  have 
found  some  defense  in  the  writings  of  these  Bap- 
tists. These  opponents  did  bring  serious  charges 
against  dipping;  they  said  it  was  opposed  to  the 
sixth  and  seventh  commandments,  but  never  that 
it  was  a  new  invention.  This  is  a  strong  argument 
when  we  remember  that  these  men  were  eye  wit- 
nesses and  participants  in  the  discussion  of  bap- 
tism. 

There  is  not  a  line,  which  I  have  discovered  in 
English  literature,  written  before  164 1,  which  will 
go  to  prove  that  the  English  Anabaptists    ever 


128  DID   THEY   DIP  ? 

practiced  sprinkling.  The  literature  is  not  very 
abundant,  but  what  there  is  of  it  is  all  on  one  side. 
I  will  present  the  testimony  at  hand  and  the  reader 
may  judge  for  himself.  This  will  be  the  subject 
of  the  next  chapter. 


THE    ENGLISH    BAPTISTS    BEFORE    164I.  129 


CHAPTER    VII. 

THE    ENGLISH    BAPTISTS    BEFORE    164I. 

We  have  already  seen  that  the  Baptists  before 
1641,  while  numerous,  suffered  greatly  from  per- 
secutions. They  did  not  leave  much  literature, 
and  so  we  must  largely  depend  upon  their  ene- 
mies for  references  to  them.  We  have  enough 
proof,  however,  to  show  that  they  practiced  dip- 
ping. 

A  book  was  published  in  1523  by  the  Anabap- 
tists in  Holland,  and  translated  and  widely  circu- 
lated in  England,  called  the  Sum  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures.     On  baptism  the  author  says: 

"So  we  are  dipped  under  as  a  sign  that  we  are, 
as  it  were,  dead  and  buried,  as  Paul  writes,  Rom. 
6  and  Col.  2.  The  life  of  man  is  a  battle  upon  the 
earth,  and  in  baptism  we  promise  to  strive  like 
men.  The  pledge  is  given  when  we  are  plunged 
under  the  water.  It  is  the  same  to  God  whether 
you  are  eighty  years  old  when  you  are  baptized, 
or  twenty;  for  God  does  not  consider  how  old  you 
are,  but  with  what  purpose  you  receive  baptism. 
He  does  not  mind  whether  you  are  Jew  or 
heathen,  man  or  woman,  nobleman  or  citizen, 
bishop  or  layman,  but  only  he  who  with  perfect 
faith  and  confidence  comes  to  God,  and  struggles 
for  eternal  life,  attains  it  as  God  has  promised  in 
the  Gospel."  (Armitage's  History  of  the  Baptists, 
p.  409). 

The  old  English  Church  Historian  Fuller,  tell- 


130  DID   THEY    DIP  ? 

ing  of  November  24,  1538,  declares  the  Anabap- 
tists to  be  dippers.     He  says: 

"A  match  being  now  made  up,  by  the  Lord 
Cromwell's  contrivance,  betwixt  King  Henry  and 
Lady  Anne  of  Cleves,  Dutchmen  flocked  faster 
than  formerly  into  England.  Many  of  them  had 
active  souls  ;  so  that,  whilst  their  hands  were 
busied  about  their  manufactures,  their  heads  were 
also  beating  about  points  of  divinity.  Hereof 
they  had  many  rude  notions,  too  ignorant  to 
manage  themselves  and  too  proud  to  crave  the 
direction  of  others.  Their  minds  had  a  bye- 
stream  of  activity  more  than  what  sufificed  to 
drive  on  their  vocation  ;  and  this  waste  of  their 
souls  they  employed  in  needless  speculations,  and 
soon  after  began  to  broach  their  strange  opinions, 
being  branded  with  the  general  name  of  Anabap- 
tists. These  Anabaptists,  for  the  main,  are  but 
*  Donatists  new  dipped';  and  this  year  their  name 
first  appears  in  our  English  Chronicles;  for  I  read 
that  four  Anabaptists,  three  men  and  one  woman, 
all  Dutch,  bare  faggots  at  St.  Paul's  Cross,  Nov. 
24th,  and  three  days  after  a  man  and  a  woman  of 
their  sect  were  burned  in  Smithfield."  (Church 
History  of  Britain,  Vol.  H.,  p.  97). 

In  1551  William  Turner,  "Doctor  of  Physick," 
*'  devysed"  "A  Preservative  or  triacle,  agaynst  the 
poyson  of  Pelagius,  lately  renued,  &  Styrred  up 
agayn,  by  the  furious  secte  of  the  Anabaptistes." 
This  book  undoubtedly  settles  the  question  that 
the  Anabaptists  of  England  practiced  immersion. 
He  repeatedly  calls  them  Catabaptists.  (See  pp. 
19,  27,  28,  49).     The  Anabaptist  in  making  his 


THE   ENGLISH    BAPTISTS   BEFORE    164I.  131 

argument  for  believers'  immersion  is   represented 
as  saying: 

*'That  such  a  lyke  costome  was  once  in  our  most 
holye  relygyon,  as  was  in  colleges  and  in  orders  of 
relygyon,  wher  as  none  were  admitted,  before  they 
had  a  year  of  probation,  wher  unto  ye  put  this  that 
they  that  came  to  be  baptized,  demanded,  and 
desyred  to  be  received  to  fellow  ship  of  the 
Christians  after  dewe  proofe  of  unfayned  repent- 
ance, and  thereby  were  called  competentes. 
Yonge  men,  and  wymen  requyrynge  baptysme: 
and  then  were  taught  the  principles  of  the 
Christian  faith  and  were  fyrst  called  Catechumeni. 
And  after  those  principles  learned,  were  upon 
certayne  solemne  dayes,  at  two  tymesof  theyeare 
approved,  therefore  baptysed:  which  was  upon 
Easter  even,  and  Whit  Sunday  even:  promysyng 
for  themselves  the  observance  of  Gods  law,  with 
the  renouncyng  of  the  devell  and  the  worlde  in 
theys  owne  person  without  God-father  or  God- 
mother, seven  score  yeares  longer  tyll  Igriius, 
Byshop  of  Rome  ordered  to  baptyse  an  infante, 
a  god-father  and  god-mother  answeryngfor  hym. 

"Where  as  ye  say  the  lyke  maner  was  in  our 
most  holy  religion,  as  the  scolers  and  religious 
men  had:  that  none  should  be  admitted,  until 
they  had  been  proved  a  yeare,  and  first  called 
competentes,  and  then  catechumeni.  I  marvayl 
what  religion  ye  meane  of:  whether  ye  meane  of 
the  Popes  religion,  or  Christes  religion,  or  of  the 
Catabaptistes  relygion,  which  is  your  religion 
indede."    (Pp.  6,  7). 

There  are   two   very  significant  statements  in 


132  DID   THEY   DIP  ? 

these  passages;  (i)  The  Anabaptist  quotes  against 
his  opponent  the  well  known  practice  of  immers- 
ing on  the  two  days  of  Easter  and  Whit  Sunday. 
(Schaff's  Hist.  Christian  Church,  Vol.  II.,  p.  252). 
And  (2)  he  says  of  the  Anabaptist  "of  the  Cata- 
baptistes  [dippers]  religion,  which  is  your  religion 
indede."  This  shows  that  they  were  certainly 
dippers. 

The  following  is  conclusive: 

"And  because  baptism  is  a  passive  sacrament, 
&  no  man  can  baptise  himselfe,  but  is  baptised  of 
another:  &  childes  may  be  as  wel  dipped  in  to 
the  water  in  ye  name  of  Christ  (which  is  the  out- 
ward baptysm  and  as  myche  as  one  man  can  gyve 
another)  even  as  olde  folke:  and  when  as  they  have 
the  promise  of  salvation,  as  well  as  olde  folkes  & 
can  receive  the  signe  of  the  same  as  wel:  there  is 
no  cause  why  that  the  baptyme  of  childes  should 
be  differed."     (Pp.  39,  40). 

Here  he  says  that  the  "olde  folke"  that  the 
Anabaptist  baptized  are  dipped.  This  is  certainly 
sufficient. 

The  Rev.  John  Man,  Merton  College,  Oxford, 
in  1578,  published  in  English  a  translation  and 
adaptation  of  the  '*  Commonplaces  of  the  Chris- 
tian Religion,"  by  Wolfganus  Musculus.  Man 
says: 

' '  The  word  baptisme  cometh  of  the  Greek,  and  is 
as  much  as  to  say  in  EngUsh,  or  dipping  or  drowning 
in." 

Of  the  Anabaptists  he  says : 

''  But  some  man  will  object.  If  the  baptism  of  John 
and  the  baptism  of  Christ  be  all  one,  then  the  aposde 


THE    ENGLISH    BAPTISTS    BEFORE    164I.  133 

had  no  reason  to  baptize  the  twelve  disciples  in  the 
manner  of  our  Lord  Jesus,  who  were  baptized  before 
of  John.  For  what  purpose  was  it  to  dippe  them  twice 
in  one  baptisme  ?  Did  not  some  of  the  fathers,  and  the 
Anabaptists  of  our  dayes,  take  the  foundation  of  their 
baptizing  of  this."     (p.  678.) 

John  Penry,  who  was  well  known  in  England, 
became  a  Baptist  preacher,  in  1586,  and  had  been 
a  very  acceptable  preacher  before  this  in  both  of 
the  Colleges,  at  Cambridge  and  Oxford.  The 
Welsh  historian  says  of  him: 

"  He  was  noted  for  piety,  ministerial  gifts,  and 
zeal  for  the  welfare  of  his  countrymen.  He  was 
a  native  of  Brecknockshire,  and  the  first  v^ho  pub- 
licly preached  the  gospel  among  the  Baptists  in 
Wales,  after  the  reformation;  which  implied  \\i-dX 
the  gospel  was,  more  or  less  privately  preached 
among  the  Baptists,  on  the  Welsh  mountains, 
during  the  whole  reign  of  popery.  He  also  wrote 
and  published  two  books.  Mr.  Anthony  Wood, 
an  Episcopalian  Minister,  says  that  John  Penry 
was  the  worst  enemy  the  Church  of  England  had 
through  the  whole  reign  of  Queen  Elizabeth." 
(J.  Davis'  History  of  the  Welsh  Baptists,  pp.  25, 
26). 

David  Davies  makes  this  statement: 

"  The  religious  condition  of  Wales  at  this  time 
was  deplorable.  The  light  which  John  Penry, 
the  young  Apostle  of  Wales  in  the  sixteenth  cent- 
ury, also  a  Baptist,  who  had  been  hanged  like  a 
criminal  at  Thomas-a- Watering,  old  Kent  Road, 
on  May  29th,  1593,  at  the  early  age  of  thirty- 
four,  twenty-four  years  before  the  birth  of  Powell, 
had  been    almost  extinguished,  although    tradi- 


134  DID   THEY   DIP  ? 

tions  of  his  heroism  lived  on,  as  indeed  they  da 
to  this  day."  (Vavasor  Powell,  The  Baptist  Evan- 
gelist of  Wales  in  the  seventeenth  century,  by 
David  Davies,  p.  14.    London,  1896). 

Davies  continues  in  a  foot  note: 

"Of  John  Penry  the  Rev.  Joshua  Thomas 
writes :  *  Possibly  he  was  the  first  that  preached  be- 
lievers' baptism  openly  and  publicly  to  his  coun- 
trymen since  the  Reformation.  I  am  strongly 
inclined  to  think  that  he  was  the  first  that  admin- 
istered that  ordinance  by  immersion  upon  a  pro- 
fession of  faith  in  and  about  Olchon.'  He  also 
adds: 'A  word  in  Ath.  Oxon.  *  *  *  speaks  out 
plainly  that  Penry  was  a  notorious  Anabaptist,  of 
which  party  he  was  the  Corypheus.  *  *  * 
Strype  owns  that  Mr.  Penry  expressed  a  great 
concern  for  his  native  country,  and  yet  charged 
him  with  Anabaptistry.'  "  (History  of  the  Baptist 
Churches  in  Wales,  p.  43,  MS.  copy  in  the  Li- 
brary of  the  Baptist  College  at  Bristol). 

But  this  is  not  all  the  information  we  have  in 
regard  to  Penry,  though  this  would  be  sufficient 
for  our  purposes.  Robert  Some,  1589,  says  of 
him: 

"  Master  Penry,  jumpeth  with  the  Anabaptis- 
tical  recusants  in  this  Argument;  his  words  are 
these.  Where  there  is  no  true  Christ  whereunto 
men  can  be  engraffed  by  Baptisme,  there  true 
Baptisme  as  touching  the  substance,  cannot  be 
gotten:  for  what  baptisme  is  that,  which  is  not 
ingraffing  into  the  true  Christ?  but  in  Poperie 
there  is  no  true  Christ,  whereunto  men  may  be 
ingraffed,  &c.     I   haue  answered  this  and  such 


THE   ENGLISH   BAPTISTS   BEFORE    164I.  135 

like  Arguments  of  Master  Penries,  Chap.  23  of  my 
last  Treatise:  I  rest  in  those  answeres."  (Chap- 
ter 12). 

Some  goes  on  with  details  of  the  Anabaptists, 
of  their  churches  in  London,  and  of  their  con- 
nection with  the  universities. 

When  we  consider  together  this  testimony  it  is 
strong  and  striking.  There  were  in  1589  Anabap- 
tist English  speaking  churches,  with  graduates 
from  the  Universities  of  Oxford  and  Cambridge, 
with  many  members,  in  London  and  elsewhere. 
All  of  these  details  are  associated  with  John 
Penry,  who  was  an  immersionist,  and  there  is  noth- 
ing to  indicate  any  difference  of  opinion  on  this 
subject  between  the  churches  and  Penry;  indeed, 
the  proof  all  points  to  their  practicing  immersion. 

John  Smyth  was  associated  with  John  Norcott 
on  the  subject  of  baptism  on  March  24th, 
1609.  This  baptism  was  certainly  by  immersion, 
for  we  find  Norcott  writing  a  book  to  substanti- 
ate dipping.  This  book  of  Norcott  was  edited 
and  reprinted  by  Chas.  H.  Spurgeon.  I  give  a 
portion  of  Chapter  IV.: 

'*  I.  The  Greek  word  Baptizo  means  to  plunge, 
to  overwhelm.  Thus  Christ  was  plunged  in  water, 
Matt.  3.  16.  Thus  he  was  plunged  or  overwhelmed 
in  his  sufferings,  Uike  12.50.  '  I  have  a  baptism 
to  be  baptized  with;  and  how  am  I  straightened  till  it 
be  accomplished! 

••  2.  The  Dutch  Translation  reads.  In  those  days 
came  John  the  Dipper,  Matt.  3.  i.  And  in  John  3. 
23,  that  version  reads,  John  was  dipphig  in  ^non 


136  DID   THEY   DIP  ? 

because  there  was  much  water  there.  What  need 
much  water  were  it  not  for  dippifig  f 

"  3.  They  did  baptize  in  rivers.  They  came  to 
John,  and  were  baptized  i?i  Jorda?iy  Matt.  3,  6.  Joh?i 
was  baptizing  ifi  ^?io?i  because  there  was  much  water 
there,  John  3.  23.  Why  need  it  be  in  a  river,  and 
where  there  was  much  water?  Would  not  a  little 
water  in  a  Bason  serve  to  Sprinkle  the  Face? 

"  4.  Baptism  signifies  the  Burial  of  Christ. 
Therefore  we  are  buried  with  him  by  baptism  into 
death,  Rom.  6.  4.  Buried  with  him  in  Baptism,  Col. 
2.  12.  Now  we  do  not  recon  a  man  buried  when 
a  little  earth  is  sprinkled  on  his  Face,  but  he  is 
buried  when  covered;  thus  you  are  buried  hi  Bap- 
tism. 

**  5.  Christ's  sufferings  are  called  a  Baptism, 
Luke  12.  50.  I  have  a  Baptism  to  be  baptized  with; 
and  how  afn  I  straightened  till  it  be  accomplished/ 
When  Christ  suffered  he  was  plunged  into  pains. 
Did  his  sufferings  lie  only  on  his  Head  or  on  his 
Forehead?  No,  no;  there  was  not  one  part  free; 
he  was  from  head  to  foot  in  pain;  his  head  was 
crowned  with  piercing  Thorns,  his  hands  and  feet 
were  nailed  to  the  Cross;  and  his  whole  person 
was  so  stretched  out  on  the  Cross  that  a  man  might 
hdiWQ  told  all  his  bones,  Ps.  22.  17.  There  was  not 
one  part  free.  Man  hath  sinned.  Body,  Soul  and 
Spirit,  and  therefore  the  whole  Christ  must  suffer 
for  sin.  Christ  was  baptized  into  pain,  plunged 
into  sorrow*^  not  any  part  free:  this  he  called  his 
Baptism.  Thus  one  baptized  is  plunged  under 
water,  to  show  how  Christ  was  plunged  into  sor- 
row for  our  sakes. 


THE   ENGLISH   BAPTISTS   BEFORE    164I.  137 

•'  6.  Baptism  is  a  putting  on  Christ.  As  many  of 
you  as  have  bee?t  baptised  into  Christ  have  put  on 
Christ,  Gal.  3.  27.  The  text  means  that  as  a  serv- 
ant wears  his  Lord's  Livery,  a  Garment  which 
demonstrates  him  to  be  a  Servant  to  such  a  great 
Personage,  so  in  Baptism  we  put  on  our  Lord's 
Livery,  and  he  himself  clothes  us  from  head  to 
foot.     It  is  thus  that  by  Baptism  we  put  on  Christ. 

"7.  Whe?i  Christ  was  baptized,  he  came  ttp  out  of 
the  Water,  Matt.  3.  16.  Was  his  baptism  per- 
formed by  having  a  little  Water  thrown  on  his 
Face?  Then  he  had  not  been  in  the  Water,  and 
could  not  have  come  out  of  it;  but  because  he 
was  baptized  in  the  Water,  therefore  being  bap- 
tized he  came  up  out  of  the  Water.  Philip  and 
the  Eunuch  we7it  down  both  into  the  Water,  (and 
being  there  in  the  Water)  Philip  baptized  the.  Eu- 
nuch. Both  of  them  came  up  out  of  the  Water, 
Acts  8.  39;  but  to  what  End  had  they  gone 
down  if  Philip  did  merely  Sprinkle  the  Eunuch, 
or  Pour  water  upon  his  head? 

"  Thus  you  see  the  place  where  these  various  per- 
sons were  baptized  was  a  River,  or  a  certain 
water;  their  Action  was  on  this  wise  —  they  went 
down  into  the  Water,  the?i,  being  in  the  Water, 
they  were  baptized.  This  was  done  in  places 
where  there  was  much  water.  The  end  was  to 
show  forth  Christ's  Burial;  now  if  there  be  not  a 
Burial  under  water  to  show  Christ's  Burial,  the 
great  end  of  the  Ordinance  is  lost:  but  Burial  is 
well  set  forth  by  Dipping  under  Water."  (Bap- 
tism Discovered  Plainly  and  Faithfully,  according 
to  the  Word  of  God.     Pp.  28-31.    London,  1885). 


138  DID   THEY    DIP  ? 

Then  there  follow  some  questions  and  answers 
to  show  that  sprinkling  is  "  strange  fire  "  on  the 
altar  of  God. 

Edmond  Jessop  had  been  an  Anabaptist,  and 
had  departed  from  the  faith.  In  1623  he  pub- 
lished "A  Discovery  of  the  Errors  of  the  English 
Anabaptists."  This  book  was  on  infant  baptism, 
but  in  referring  to  the  position  of  the  Anabaptists 
he  mentions  their  use  of  Rom.  6.  While  dipping 
is  not  mentioned  it  is  plain  that  Jessop  assumes 
it  in  relation  to  the  Anabaptists.    Jessop  says: 

"In  which  words  (I  say)  he  setteth  downe  ex- 
presly  that  the  baptisme  which  saueth,  the  bap- 
tisme  whereby  we  put  on  Christ,  the  baptisme 
whereby  our  hearts  are  purged  and  sanctified, 
and  the  sinnes-  of  our  flesh  done  away,  whereby 
we  are  buried  with  Christ,  and  doe  rise  with  him, 
euen  that  which  is  through  the  faith  and  operation 
of  the  Spirit,  is  one  and  the  same,  with  the  circum- 
cision of  the  heart,  which  he  therefore  calleth, 
the  circumcision  made  zvithout  hands,  the  circumcision 
of  Christ,  whereby  also  it  appeareth  clearly,  and 
beyond  all  contradiction,  that  the  circumcision, 
or  the  cutting  of  the  foreskin  of  the  flesh,  was  a 
signe  and  a  true  representation  of  the  doing  away 
of  their  sinnes,  of  the  cleansing  of  the  heart  by 
faith  (as  the  now  doing  away  of  the  filth  of  the 
flesh  with  the  baptism  of  water  is);  for  which  vse 
and  end,  it  was  also  given  to  Abrahain  at  the  first, 
as  this  Apostle  also  declareth  in  another  place," 
etc.     (P.  62). 

Vavasor  Powell  is  a  brilliant  instance  of  a  man 
baptized  by  immersion  upon  a  profession  of  his 
faith  before  1641.     Davis  says  of  him: 


THE   ENGLISH   BAPTISTS   BEFORE    164I.  13& 

"  He  was  inclined  to  suffer  affliction  with  the 
people  of  God  rather  than  to  proceed  in  the  ways 
of  sin  and  folly.  Soon  afterwards  he  was  baptized 
on  a  profession  of  his  faith,  and  became  a  very 
popular  preacher  among  the  Baptists  in  Wales 
in  the  year  of  our  Lord  in  1636.  He  was  one  of 
the  most  zealous  and  useful  preachers  in  the  Prin- 
cipality. He  often  preached  throughout  Wales 
and  in  many  parts  of  England.  Being  a  man  of 
liberal  education,  he  was  remarkably  fluent  in 
both  languages."  (History  of  the  Welsh  Baptists, 
p.  28.     Pittsburg,  1835). 

Powell  himself  is  very  clear  upon  the  act  of 
baptism.     He  says: 

"  Water  baptism  is  a  solemn,  significant  dipping 
into,  or  washing  with  water  the  body  in  (or  into) 
the  name  of  the  Father,  &c.  (Matt.  28,  19).  It 
signifies  the  death,  the  burial  and  resurrection  of 
Christ,  also  the  spiritual  cleansing  and  washing 
of  justification  and  regeneration  or  sanctification." 
(Life,  pp.  35-41). 

Edward  Barber  refers  to  the  Independents  in 
these  words: 

"  Again,  others  who  pretend  to  come  neerestin 
that  way  in  separating,  yet  hold  the  baptisme 
they  there  received  though  on  no  ground;  for  if 
they  were  truly  baptised  into  that  Church  I  con- 
ceive with  submission  to  better  judgments,  they 
ought  to  continue,  and  to  separate  for  corrup- 
tions, as  is  clearly  proved  by  B.  Hall,  in  his 
Apology  against  the  Brownists,  shewing  that 
either  they  must  goe  forward  to  baptisme,  or 
come  backe  again  to  the  Bishops  and  Church." 


140  DID   THEY   DIP  ? 

(A  Small  Treatise  of  Baptisme,  Preface,  sec.  6, 
London,  1641). 

The  work  of  Bishop  Hall  to  which  reference  is 
here  made  is  called:  "A  common  apologie  of 
the  Church  of  England  against  the  unjust  chal- 
lenges of  the  over  just  sect  commonly  called 
Brownists."  The  title  page  shows  that  this  book 
was  written  in  1610.  Barber  always  understood 
baptism  to  be  an  immersion,  and  quotes  Bishop 
Hall  in  support  of  his  position  that  the  Brown- 
ists must  go  back  to  Episcopacy  or  forward  to 
baptism.  Barber  would  not  have  quoted  Hall  as 
sustaining  his  immersion  views  unless  he  had 
strong  reasons  for  so  doing.  This  reference  will 
carry  the  practice  of  immersion  back  among  Bap- 
tists till  1610,  at  any  rate.  Indeed,  there  is  no 
doubt  about  the  concession  of  Bishop  Hall,  for  I 
find  in  the  work  of  A.  R.,  1642,  the  first  part  of 
"The  Vanity  of  Childish  Baptism,"  p.  34,  a  very 
striking  passage  from  Bishop  Hall.  The  Bishop 
called  the  Anabaptists  Catabaptists,  or  dippers. 
I  quote  from  A.  R. : 

"  Yea  and  much  lesse  in  the  judgment  of  Bishop 
Hall,  who  in  this  point  expresses  himselfe  in  these 
words  (viz)  I  am  for  my  heart  so  confident  of  the 
Divine  Institution  of  the  majority  of  Bishops 
above  Presbyters,  that  I  dare  boldly  say,  that 
there  are  weighty  points  of  faith  which  have  not 
so  strong  evidence  in  holy  Scripture,  (and  there 
be  instanceth  in  two  particulars).  The  power  by 
sacred  orders  given  to  the  ministers  alone  for  the 
Consecration  and  distribution  of  the  holy  Eucha- 
rist, and   the   receiving  of  Infants   to   holy  Bap- 


THE   ENGLISH   BAPTISTS   BEFORE    1641.  141 

tisme,  which  (saith  he)  is  a  matter  of  so  high 
consequence,  that  we  justly  brand  the  Catabap- 
tists  with  heresie  for  denying  it,  yet  let  me  with 
good  assurance,  say,  that  the  evidences  of  this 
truth  come  farre  short  of  that  which  the  Script- 
ures have  afforded  us  for  the  superiority  of  some 
Church  Governor  even  those  who  otherwise  in- 
deed, in  a  sole  respect  of  their  Ministerial  Func- 
tion, are  equall  ;  and  then  he  shuts  up  the  point 
in  these  very  words  (viz)  He  therefore  that 
would  upon  pretence  of  want  of  Scripture  quar- 
rell  at  the  Divine  institution  of  Bishops  might 
with  much  better  colour  cavill  at  these  blessed 
Ordinances  of  God."     (P.  35). 

Here  is  undoubted  contemporaneous  evidence 
in  1610  that  the  Baptists  were  immersionists. 


142  DID  THEY   DIP  ? 

CHAPTER  VIII. 

THE    KIFFIN   MS.  AND  THE  JESSEY  CHURCH  RECORDS. 

The  foundation  upon  which  Dr.  Whitsitt  builds 
his  entire  superstructure  is  the  so-called  Kiffin 
manuscript.  The  authority,  authenticity  and 
clearness  of  the  application  of  this  document  to 
the  Baptists  must  be  put  beyond  question.  He 
must  have  "  irrefragable  proofs  "  to  sustain  this 
manuscript.  There  must  be  no  mistake  or  doubt 
on  a  vital  point  like  this.  It  is  upon  this  manu- 
script that  he  gets  his  date  of  1641.  It  is  from 
this  manuscript  that  he  establishes  immersion 
from  the  Dutch  through  Blount.  It  is  from  this 
manuscript  that  he  traces  his  line  of  succession, 
and  indeed  it  is  from  this  manuscript  that  he  gets 
all  the  details  of  his  theory.  It  is  the  only  Bap- 
tist document  that  he  quotes  that  is  at  all  vital  to 
his  position.  What  we  demand  of  Dr.  Whitsitt 
just  here  is  clear,  certain  and  unequivocal  proof. 
At  this  vital  point  he  fails  and  the  testimony  is 
against  him. 

After  quoting  from  Hutchinson,  Crosby  says: 
"  This  agrees  with  an  account  given  of  the 
matter  in  an  ancient  manuscript,  said  to  be 
written  by  Mr.  William  Kiffin,  who  lived  in  those 
times,  and  was  a  leader  among  those  of  that  per- 
suasion: 

"This  relates  that  several  sober  and  pious  persons  be- 
longing to  the  Congregations  of  dissenters  about  London 
were  convinced  that  believers  were  the  only  proper  subjects 
of  baptism  and  that  it  ought  only  to  be  administered  by 
immersion  or  dipping  the  whole  body  into  water  in  resem- 


THE  KIFFIN  MS.  AND  JESSEY  CHURCH  RECORDS.        143 

blance  of  burial  and  resurrection  according  to  2  Colos.  ii.  12, 
and  Rom.  vi.  4.  That  they  often  met  together  to  pray  and 
confer  about  this  matter  and  consult  what  methods  they 
should  take  to  enjoy  the  ordinance  in  its  primitive  purity. 
That  they  could  not  be  satisfied  about  any  administrator  in 
Englafid  to  begin  this  practice,  because  though  some  in 
this  nation  rejected  the  baptism  of  infants  yet  they  had  not 
as  they  knew  of  revived  the  ancient  custom  of  irmnersion. 
But  hearing  that  some  in  the  Netherlaiids  practiced  it,  they 
sent  over  one  Mr.  Richard  Blount,  who  understood  the 
Dutch  language;  That  he  went  accordingly,  carrying  let- 
ters of  recommendation  with  him,  and  was  kindly  received 
both  by  the  church  there  and  by  Mr.  John  Batte,  their 
teacher;  That  on  his  return  he  baptized  Mr,  Samuel  Black- 
lock,  a  minister;  and  those  two  baptized  the  rest  of  the 
company,  whose  names  are  in  the  manuscript,  to  the  num- 
ber of  fifty-three."     (Crosby  I.,  101-2) . 

Dr.  Whitsitt  was  led  to  see  that  this  testimony 
(rom  the  so-called  Kiffin  manuscript  was  not  con- 
clusive, so  he  cast  around  to  find  something  to 
sustain  it.  He  virtually  confesses  that  the  Kiffin 
manuscript  is  not  authoritative  (p.  83).  He 
thinks  he  finds  this  confirmation  in  the  Rev, 
George  Gould's  account  of  the  Norwich  Chapel 
case  in  England.  The  book  is  entitled  "  Open 
Communion  and  the  Baptists  of  Norwich,"  by 
Rev.  George  Gould,  and  was  published  in  i860. 
This  new  evidence  that  Dr.  Whitsitt  discovers 
is  called  the  "  Jessey  Church  Records."  He 
says  of  them: 

These  singularly  valuable  records,  which  must  be  still  in 
existence  since  Gould  had  them  in  his  possession  in  1860 
(Open  Communion,  Introduction,  p.  cxxiii),  ought  by  all 
means  to  be  published  in  facsimile,  and  whoever  accom- 
plishes that  task  will  render  an  important  service  to  Bap- 
tist history.  Mr.  Gould  prints  only  "  certain  entries"  found 
in  them  (Introduction,  p.  cxxii),  and  these  do  not  quite  cover 
all  the  ground  occupied  by  the  so-called  Kiffin  manuscript. 
To  facilitate  comparison  both  documents  will  be  found 
printed  in  parallel  columns  below,  the  one  under  the  title  of 
"Jessey  Church  Records  "and  the  other  as  the  so-called 
Kiffin  manuscript.     (P.  81). 


144 


DID   THEY   DIP  ? 


He  devotes  a  whole  chapter  to  these  '*  Genuine 
Ancient  Records."  And  throughout  the  remain- 
der of  the  book  he  makes  the  greatest  use  of 
them,  referring  to  them  no  less  than  28  times. 
He  quotes  them  on  all  important  occasions,  and 
indeed  without  the  "Jessey  Church  Records"  his 
case  goes  to  the  wall.  They  are  the  keystone  in 
the  arch.  Here  is  where  he  gets  his  1641,  and 
this  is  the  extent  of  his  discovery.  Here  are  Dr. 
Whitsitt's  parallel  columns: 

JESSEY   CHURCH   RECORDS. 

1633.  There  haveing  been 
much  discussing,  These  de- 
nying Truth  of  ye  Parish 
Churches,  and  ye  Church  be 
ing  now  become  so  large  yt 
it  might  be  pre3udicial,These 
following  desired  dismission, 
that  they  might  become  an 
Entire  Church,  and  (2)  fur- 
ther ye  Communion  of  those 
Churches  in  Order  amongst 
themselves,  wch  at  last  was 
granted  to  them,  and  per- 
formed Sept.  12,  1633,  viz.: 

Henry  Parker  &  wife. 

Jo.  Milburn. 

Widd.  Fearne. 

Arnold. 

[Green]  Hatmaker. 

Mr.  Wilson. 

Mark  Luker. 

Tho.  Allen. 

Mary  Milburn. 

To  These  Joyned  Rich. 
Blunt,  Tho.  Hubert,  Rich. 
Tredwell,  and  his  Wife 
Kath.,  John  Trimber,  Wm. 
Jennings  and  Sam  Eaton, 
Mary  Greenway,  (3)  Mr. 
Eaton  with  some  others 
receiving  a  further  baptism. 

Others  Joyned  to  them. 

1638.    These  also  being  of 


SO-CALLED     KIFFIN     MANU- 
SCRIPT. 

There  was  a  congregation 
of  Protestant  Dissenters  of 
the  independent  Persuasion 
in  London,  gathered  in  the 
year  1616,  whereof  Mr. 
Henry  Jacob  was  the  first 
pastor;  and  after  him  suc- 
ceeded Mr.  John  Lathorp, 
who  was  their  minister  at 
this  time.  In  this  society 
several  persons  finding  that 
the  congregations  kept  not 
to  their  first  principles  of 
separation,  and  being  also 
convinced  that  (1)  baptism 
was  not  to  be  administered 
to  infants,  but  such  only  as 
professed  faith  in  Christ, 
desired  that  they  might  be 
dismissed  from  that  com- 
munion, and  allowed  to  form 
a  distinct  congregation  in 
such  order  as  was  most 
agreeable  to  their  own  Sen- 
timents. 

The  church  considering 
that  they  were  now  grown 
very  numerous,  and  so  more 
than  could  in  these  times  of 
persecution  conveniently 
meet  together,  and  believ- 
ing also  that  those   persons 


THE  KIFFIN  MS.  AND  JESSEY  CHURCH  RECORDS.         145 


ye  same  Judgment  with  Sam 
Eaton, and  desiring  to  depart 
and  not  be  censured,  our  in- 
trest  in  them  was  remitted, 
with  Prayer  made  in  their 
behalf,  June  8,  1638.  They 
haveing  first  forsaken  Us, 
and  Joyned  with  Mr.  Spils- 
bury,  viz. 

Mr.  Peti  Ferrer, 

Wm.  Batty, 

Hen.  Pen, 

Mrs.  Allen  (died  1639), 

Tho.  Wilson, 

Mr.  Norwood. 

Gould,  Open  Co?mnunion 
and  the  Baptists  of  Norwich, 
Intro.,  p.  cxxii. 

1640.  3d  Mo.  [May].  The 
Church  [whereof  Mr.  Jacob 
and  Mr.  John  Lathorp  had 
been  Pastors],  became  two 
by  mutual  consent,  just  half 
being  with  Mr.  P.  Barebone, 
and  ye  other  halfe  with  Mr. 
H.  Jessey.  (8.)  Mr.  Richd. 
Blunt  wth  him,  being  con- 
vinced of  Baptism,  yt  also  it 
ought  to  be  by  diping  ye 
Body  into  ye  Water,  re- 
sembling Burial  and  riseing 
again.  (Col.  ii.,  12;  Rom. 
vi.,  4):  had  sober  Confer- 
ance  about  it  in  ye  Church, 
and  and  then  with  sojne  of 
theforenamed,  who  also  were 
so  convificed :  And  after 
Prayer  and  Conf  erance  about 
their  so  enjoying  it,  none 
having  then  so  practiced  in 
Engla7id  to  professed  Believ- 
ers, and  hearing  that  some 
in  the  Nether  Lands  had  so 
practiced,  they  agreed  and 
sent  over  Mr.  Rich'd  Blunt 
(who  understood  Dutch), 
with  Letters  of  Comenda- 
tion,  who  was  kindly  accept- 
ed there,  and  Returned  with 
10 


acted  from  a  principle  of 
conscience,  and  not  obstin- 
acy, agreed  to  allow  them 
the  liberty  they  desired,  and 
that  they  should  be  consti- 
tuted a  distinct  church,  which 
was  performed  the  I2th  of 
September,  1638.  And  as 
they  believed  that  baptism 
was  not  rightly  administer- 
ed to  infants,  so  they  looked 
upon  the  baptism  they  had 
received  in  that  age  as  in- 
valid; whereupon  most  or 
all  of  them  received  a  new 
baptism.  (5)  Their  minister 
was  Mr.  John  Spilsbury. 
What  number  they  were  is 
uncertain,  because  in  the 
mentioning  of  the  names  of 
about  twenty  men  and 
women  it  is  added,  with 
divers  others. 

In  the  year  1638  Mr.  Wil- 
liam (6)  Kiffin,  Mr.  Thomas 
Wilson,  and  others  being  of 
the  same  judgment,  were 
upon  their  request,  dismissed 
to  the  said  Mr.  Spilsbury's 
congregation. 

(7)  In  the  year  1639  an- 
other congregation  of  Bap- 
tists was  formed,  whose  place 
of  meeting  was  in  Crutched 
—  Fryars;  the  chief  pro- 
moters of  which  were  Mr.. 
Green,  Mr.  Paul  Hobson 
and  Captain  Spencer. 

Crosby,  Vol.  I.,  pp.  148-9. 

For  in  the  year  1640,  this 
church  became  two  by  con- 
sent; just  half,  says  the  man- 
uscript, being  with  Mr.  P. 
Barebone,  and  the  other  half 
with  Mr.  Henry  Jessey. 

Crosby,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  41. 

Several  sober  and  pious 
persons  belonging  to  the 
Congregations    of    the    dis- 


146 


DID   THEY   DIP  ? 


senters  about  London  were 
convinced  that  believers 
were  the  only  proper  sub- 
jects of  baptism,  and  that 
it  ought  to  be  administered 
by  immersion  or  dipping  the 
whole  body  into  the  water, 
in  resemblance  of  a  burial 
and  resurrection  according 
to  Colos.  II.,  12,  and  Rom. 
VI.,  4.  That  they  often  met 
together  to  pray  and  confer 
about  this  matter,  and  to  con- 
sult what  methods  they 
should  take  to  enjoy  this 
ordinance  in  its  primitive 
purity:  That  they  could  not 
be  satisfyed  about  any  ad- 
ministrator in  England  to 
begin  this  practice;  because 
tho*  some  in  this  nation  re- 
jected the  baptism  of  in- 
fants, yet  they  had  not  as 
they  knew  of  revived  the  an- 
cient custo7n  of  immersion  : 
But  hearing  that  some  in 
the  Netherlands  practiced 
it,  they  agreed  to  send  over 
one  Mr.  Richard  Blunt,  who 
understood  the  Dutch  lan- 
guage; that  he  went  accord- 
ingly, carrying  letters  of  re- 
commendation with  him  and 
was  kindly  received  both  by 
the  church  there  and  Mr. 
John  Batten,  their  teacher. 

That  upon  his  return  he 
baptized  Mr.  Samuel  Black- 
lock,  a  minister,  and  these 
two  baptized  the  rest  of 
their  company  [whose  names 
are  in  the  manuscript  to 
the  number  of  fifty-three.] 

Crosby,  Vol.  I.,  pp.  101-2. 

Dr.  Whitsitt  divides  these  "  Jessey  Church  Rec- 
ords "  into  two  parts.  The  first  part  contains  the 
two  paragraphs  under  "Jessey  Church  Records," 


Letters  from  them.Jo.  Batten 
a  Teacher  there,  and  from 
that  Church  to  such  as  sent 
him. 

1641.  They  proceed  on 
therein,  viz.:  Those  persons 
yt  ware  perswaded  Baptism 
should  be  by  dipping  ye 
Body,  had  mett  in  (9)  two 
Companies,  and  did  intend 
so  to  meet  after  this:  all 
these  agreed  to  proceed 
alike  together:  and  then 
Manifesting  (not  by  any  for- 
mal Words)  a  Covenant 
(wch  Word  was  Scrupled  by 
some  of  them),  but  by  mutual 
desires  and  agreement  each 
testified:  These  two  Com- 
panyes  did  set  apart  one  to 
Baptize  the  rest,  so  it  was 
Solemnly  performed  by 
them. 

Mr.  Blunt  baptized  Mr. 
Blacklock,  yt  was  a  Teacher 
amongst  them,  and  Mr.Blunt 
being  baptized,  he  and  Mr. 
Blacklock  Baptized  ye  rest 
of  their  friends  yt  ware  so 
minded,  and  many  being 
added  to  them  they  increas- 
ed much. 

Gould,  0/>en  Communion 
and  the  Baptists  of  Norwich, 
Intro.,  pp.  cxxiii,  cxxiv. 


THE  KIFFIN  MS.  AND  JESSEY  CHURCH  RECORDS.        147 

under  the  dates  of  1633  and  1638.  These  two 
paragraphs  contain  nothing  on  the  subject  of 
baptism  and  are  of  no  importance  in  this  discus- 
sion. These  "Jessey Church  Records"  are  intro- 
duced by  Gould  with  these  words: 

"  Amongst  the  MSS.  of  H.  Jessey,  who  in  1637 
became  pastor  of  the  Church  from  which  these 
persons  had  seceded,  are  '  The  Records  of  an 
Antient  Congregation  of  Dissenters  from  wch 
many  of  y^  Independent  and  Baptist  Churches  in 
London  took  their  rise,'  and  there  I  find  these 
entries:" 

Then  follows  all  that  is  found  above  under 
the  dates  of  1633  and  1638. 

The  second  part  is  under  the  dates  of  1640  and 

1641.     Of  this  second   division  Dr.  Whitsitt  says: 

The  second  division  of  the  Jessey  Church  Records,  be- 
ginning with  the  disruption  of  Jessey's  church  in  1640,  is 
perhaps  the  most  important.    (P.  85). 

This  contains  all  that  is  said  on  the  subject  of 
baptism.  In  it  is  found  the  quotation  he  has 
made  so  many  times  in  the  body  of  the  book, 
*'  none  having  then  so  practiced  in  England  to 
professed  believers."  If  this  is  overthrown  all  is 
gone.  His  book  is  gone,  for  this  is  the  keystone 
of  the  whole  superstructure.  I  now  assert  on  the 
authority  of  Gould  himself,  from  whom  Dr.  Whit- 
sitt quotes,  that  there  is  nothing  of  this  sort  in 
the  "Jessey  Church  Records"  at  all.  The  records 
make  no  such  reference  to  the  years  1640  and 
1641.  No  such  words  are  found  in  them.  How 
Dr.  Whitsitt  came  to  place  these  two  paragraphs 
in  the  "  Jessey  Church  Records  "  I  cannot  attempt 


148  DID   THEY   DIP  ? 

to  explain.  It  is  sufficient  to  say  that  they  are 
not  there.  And  Gould,  from  whom  he  quotes, 
does  not  place  them  there.  So  all  of  this 
ado  about  the  "  Jessey  Church  Records  "  goes 
into  thin  air. 

From  whence,  then,  did  Dr.  Whitsitt  get  these 
two  paragraphs?  They  have  no  connection  with 
the  Jessey  Church  Records  whatever,  but  are  an- 
other version  of  the  Kiffin  Manuscript,  and  Gould 
so  quotes  them.  Gould  widely  separates  these 
paragraphs  from  the  Jessey  Records  and  distinctly 
says  that  these  paragraphs  are  from  the  Kiffin 
Manuscript.     His  words  are: 

"  Crosby  appeals  for  confirmation  of  Hutchin- 
son's account  to  *  an  antient  manuscript  by  Mr. 
William  Kiffin,'  and  of  which  he  proceeds  to  give 
the  substance.  As  I  have  the  same  document 
lying  before  me,  I  shall  allow  the  writer  to  tell  his 
own  tale."  (Open  Communion  and  the  Baptists 
of  Norwich,  p.  cxxiii).  And  then  he  proceeds  to 
give  the  words  Dr.  Whitsitt  put  under  the  "  Jes- 
sey Church  Records"  dated  1640  and  1641.  Here, 
then.  Dr.  Whitsitt  has  placed  in  the  Jessey  Church 
Records  things  which  are  contained  in  the  Kiffin 
Manuscript.  This  not  only  destroys  all  reference 
to  the  Jessey  Church  Records  as  authority,  but 
likewise  weakens  the  Kiffin  Manuscript.  Which 
one  of  these  versions  are  we  to  believe? 
Crosby  gives  one  and  Gould  gives  another.  If  Dr. 
Whitsitt  had  read  even  Armitage  he  would  have 
found  that  Armitage  gives  this  exact  quotation 
and  properly  ascribes  it  to  Kiffin.  (Armitage's 
History  of  the  Baptists,  p.  441). 


THE  KIFFIN  MS.  AND  JESSEY  CHURCH  RECORDS.        149 

But  in  order  that  I  may  be  perfectly  clear  on 
this  point,  at  the  risk  of  repeating  somewhat, 
I  give  the  entire  statement  of  Gould.  A  com- 
parison of  Gould  with  the  statement  of  Dr. 
Whitsitt  is  all  that  is  necessary  to  prove  that 
Dr.  Whitsitt  has  placed  words  in  the  Jessey 
Church  Records  which  belong  to  the  Kiffin 
Manuscript.     Gould  says: 

AMONG  THE  MSS.  OF  MR.  H.  JESSEY,  WHO  IN 
1637  BECAME  PASTOR  OF  THE  CHURCH  FROM 
WHICH  THESE  PERSONS  HAD  SECEDED,  ARE 
"THE  RECORDS  OF  AN  ANTIENT  CONGREGA- 
TION OF  DISSENTERS,  FROM  WCH  MANY  OF 
YE  INDEPENDENT  AND  BAPTIST  CHURCHES  IN 
LONDON  TOOK  THEIR  FIRST  RISE,"  AND  THERE 
I  FIND  THESE  ENTRIES:* 

1633.  There  having  been  much  discussing.  These  de- 
nying Truth  of  ye  Parish  Churches,  and  ye  Church  being 
now  become  so  large  yt  it  might  be  prejudicial.  These  fol- 
lowing desired  dismission,  that  they  might  become  an  En- 
tire Church,  and  further  ye  Communion  of  those  Churches 
in  Order  amongst  themselves,  wch  at  last  was  granted  to 
them,  and  performed  Sept.  12, 1633,  viz.: 
Henry  Parker  and  wife,  Jo.  Milburn, 

Widd.  Fearne,  Arnold, 

(Green)  Hatmaker,  Mr.  Wilson, 

Mark  Luker,  Tho.  Allen, 

Mary  Milburn. 

To  These  Joyned  Rich.  Blunt,  Tho.  Hubert,  Rich.  Tred- 
well,  and  his  wife  Kath.,  John  Timber,  Wm.  Jennings  and 
Sam  Eaton,  Mary  Greenway.  Mr.  Eaton  with  some  others 
receiving  a  further  baptism. 

Others  Joyned  to  them. 

1638.  These  also  being  of  ye  same  judgment  with  Sam 
Eaton,  and  desiring  to  depart  and  not  be  censured,  our  in- 
terest in  them  was  remitted,  with  Prayer  made  in  their  be- 
half, June  8,  1638.  They  having  first  forsaken  Us,  and 
Joyned  with  Mr.  Spilsbury,  viz.: 
Mr.  Peti  Ferrer,  Wm.  Batty, 

Hen  Pen,  Mrs.  Allen  (died  1639), 

Tho.  Wilson,  Mr.  Norwood. 

From  these  minutes  I  infer  that  Mr.  Spilsbury,  believ- 
ing "  that  baptizedness  is  not  essential  to  the  administrator," 

*  Capitals  mine.— C. 


150  DID   THEY   DIP  ? 

felt  no  difficultie  in  administering  the  rite  of  baptism  to 
"  Sam  Eaton  with  some  others."  This  would  account  for 
his  vindication  of  such  a  course  in  the  following  terms  as 
quoted  by  Crosby: 

"  And  because  some  make  it  such  an  error,  and  so  far 
from  any  rule  or  example  for  a  man  to  baptize  others,  who 
is  himself  unbaptized,  and  so  think  thereby  to  shut  up  the 
ordinance  of  God  in  such  a  strait,  that  none  can  come  by  it 
but  thro'  the  authority  of  the  Popedom  of  Rome  ;  let  the  reader 
consider  who  baptized  John  the  Baptist,  before  he  baptized 
others,  and  if  no  man  did,  then  whether  he  did  not  baptize 
others,  he  being  himself  unbaptized.  We  are  taught  by  this 
what  to  do  upon  like  occasions. 

"  Further,  says  he,  I  fear  that  men  put  more  than  is  of 
right  due  to  it,  that  so  prefer  it  above  the  church,  and  all 
other  ordinances  besides;  take  in  and  cast  out  members,  elect 
and  ordain  officers,  and  administer  the  supper,  and  all 
anew,  without  any  looking  after  succession,  any  further 
than  the  Scriptures.  But  as  for  baptism,  they  must  have 
that  successfully  from  the  Apostles,  though  it  comes  thro' 
the  hands  of  Pope  Joan.  What  is  the  cause  of  this,  that 
men  can  do  all  from  the  Word  but  only  baptism?" 

It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  some  persons  scrupled  the 
correctness  of  Mr.  Spilsbury's  conduct.  Edward  Hutchin- 
son, in  his  "Treatise  concerning  the  Covenant  and  Bap- 
tism," incidentally  confirms  this  conclusion,  for  he  says 
that,  when  several  persons  resolved  to  practice  the  baptism 
of  believers  according  to  their  light: 

"  The  great  objection  was  the  want  of  an  administrator, 
which,  as  I  have  heard,  was  removed  by  sending  certam 
messengers  io  Holland,  whence  they  were  supplied." 

Crosby  applies  for  confirmation  of  Hutchinson's  account 
to  "an  ancient  manuscript,  said  to  have  been  written  by 
Mr.  William  Kiffin,"  of  which  he  proceeds  to  give  the  sub- 
stance. AS  I  HAVE  THE  SAME  DOCUMENT  NOW 
LYING  BEFORE  ME.  I  SHALL  ALLOW  THE 
WRITER  TO  TELL  HIS  OWN  TALE:* 

"  1640,  8d  Mo.  (May).  The  Church  [whereof  Mr.  Jacob 
and  Mr.  John  Lathrop  had  been  Pastors],  became  two  by 
mutual  consent,  just  half  being  with  Mr.  P.  Barebone  and 
ye  other  halfe  with  Mr.  H.  Jessey.  Mr.  Rich'd  Blunt 
with  him  being  convinced  of  Baptism,  yt  also  it  ought  to  be 
by  dipping  ye  Body  into  ye  Water,  resembling  Burial  and 
riseing  again.  Col.  II.,  12;  Rom.  VL,  4;  had  sober  Confer- 
ence about  it  in  ye  Church,  and,  then  with  so7?ie  of  the  fore- 
named,  who  also  were  so  convinced:  And  after  Prayer  and 
Conference  about  their  so  enjoying  it,  none  having  then  so 
practiced  in  England  to  professed  Believers,  and  hearing 

*  Capitals  mine.— C. 


THE  KIFFIN  MS.  AND  JESSEY  CHURCH  RECORDS.        151 

that  some  in  the  Nether  Lands  had  so  practiced,  they 
agreed  and  sent  over  Mr.  Rich'd  Blunt  (who  understood 
Dutch)  with  Letters  of  Commendation,  who  was  kindly  ac- 
cepted there,  and  returned  with  Letters  from  them,  Jo  Bat- 
ten a  Teacher  there,  and  from  that  Church  to  such  as  sent 
him. 

"  1641.  They  proceed  on  therein,  viz.:  Those  persons  yt 
ware  perswaded  Baptism  should  be  by  dipping  ye  Body, 
had  mett  in  two  Companies,  and  did  intend  so  to  meet  after 
this;  all  these  agreed  to  proceed  alike  together;  and  then 
Manifesting  (not  by  any  formal  words)  a  Covenant  (Word 
wch  was  Scrupled  by  some  of  them)  but  by  mutual  desires 
and  agreement  each  testified:  These  two  Companyes  did 
set  apart  one  to  Baptize  the  rest,  so  it  was  Solemnly  per- 
formed by  them. 

"  Mr.  Blunt  baptized  Mr.  Blacklock,  yt  was  a  Teacher 
among  them,  and  Mr.  Blunt  being  baptized,  he  and  Mr. 
Blacklock  baptized  ye  rest  of  their  friends  yt  ware  so 
minded,  and  many  being  added  to  them  they  increased 
much." 

But  there  is  another  consideration  which  I 
have  not  as  yet  mentioned.  Are  the  Jessey 
Church  Records  a  forgery?  Dr.  Henry  S.  Bur- 
rage  is  constrained  to  admit: 

"  It  will  be  noticed  that  in  our  reference  above 
to  the  Jessey  Church  Records,  we  say  '  if  they 
are  authentic'  We  have  not  forgotten  the 
'Crowle  and  Epworth'  records.  These  made 
their  appearance  about  the  same  time  as  the  Jes- 
sey Church  Records,  and  it  is  now  known  that 
they  are  clumsy  forgeries.  The  Jessey  Church 
Records  may  be  genuine,  but  their  genuineness 
has  not  yet  been  established."  {Ziotis  Advocate, 
Sept.  30,  1896). 

We  have  no  external  proof  of  the  genuineness 
of  these  Records.  They  stand  wholly  unauthen- 
ticated.  Before  we  accept  them  we  must  have 
undoubted  proof  of  their  genuineness.  Outside 
of  the  fact  that  we  have  not  one  iota  of  external 


152  DID   THEY   DIP  ? 

evidence  that  these  Records  are  genuine,  the  in- 
ternal evidence  is  all  against  them.  Examine  the 
title  "  The  Records  of  an  antient  Congregation  of 
Dissenters  from  wch  many  of  ye  Independent 
and  Baptist  Churches  took  their  rise."  This  title 
is  enough  to  forever  condemn  these  Records  as  a 
forgery.  Allow  me  to  point  out  a  few  considera- 
tions: 

1.  This  was  not,  in  1640,  an  ancient  congrega- 
tion. At  that  time  this  church  had  been  organ- 
ized less  than  twenty-five  years,  and  in  that  land 
of  ancient  churches  no  man  would  have  called 
this  Jessey  Church  an  **  antient  Congregation." 

2.  In  1640  "many  of  ye  Independent  Church- 
es" had  not  taken  "their  rise"  from  it. 

3.  In  1640  it  was  not  the  Mother  of  "  many  " 
Baptist  Churches. 

4.  The  name  "  Baptist  Churches  "  was  not  then 
in  use,  and  conclusively  proves  these  Records  a 
fraud.  The  term  "  Baptist "  was  not  used  till 
some  years  after  this  period. 

Thus  Dr.  Whitsitt's  principal  authority  has  no 
existence  in  fact.  His  whole  book  is  founded  upon 
this  error.  As  much  has  been  said  about  the  so- 
called  Kiffin  Manuscript,  I  will  now  proceed  to 
review  it.  It  is  scarcely  worth  while,  after  this 
remarkable  exploit  with  the  Jessey  Church  Rec- 
ords, but  I  desire  to  give  a  complete  review  of 
the  subject. 

This  theory,  as  presented  from  the  so-called 
Kiffin  Manuscript,  presents  insuperable  difficul- 
ties: 

I.    Dr.  Whitsitt  presents  no  proof,  and  none  has 


THE  KIFFIN  MS.  AND  JESSEY  CHURCH  RECORDS.        153 

been  found,  that  Kiffin  wrote  this  Manuscript. 
Crosby,  who  wrote  his  history  about  one  hundred 
years  after  this  event,  is  said  to  have  happened, 
ventured  to  say: 

"  This  agrees  with  an  account  of  the  matter  in 
an  ancient  manuscript  said  to  have  been  written 
by  Mr.  Wm.  Kiffin,  who  lived  in  those  times." 
(Crosby,  Vol.  I.,  p.  lOO). 

Cathcart,  a  Baptist  writer,  says  this  transaction 
of  Blount's  may  have  happened,  but  he  further 
remarks: 

"  We  would  not  bear  heavily  on  the  testimony 
adduced  by  these  good  men."  (Baptist  Encyclo- 
paedia, Vol.  I.,  p.  572). 

2.  There  is  no  proof  that  the  Manuscript  was 
written  by  any  one  near  the  year  1641.  Dexter, 
upon  whom  Dr.  Whitsitt  has  constantly  relied, 
gives  up  this  Manuscript.     He  says: 

"  Crosby  says  he  derived  his  information  from 
an  'antient  manuscript  said  to  be  written  by  Mr. 
William  Kiffin,  who  lived  in  those  times,  and  was 
a  leader  among  those  of  that  persuasion.'  Con- 
ceding the  genuineness  of  this  manuscript,  and 
its  value  in  testimony — both  of  which  might 
be  open  to  question — let  us  note  its  exact  words 
as  to  the  point  before  us."  (The  True  Story  of 
John  Smyth,  p.  43). 

Again: 

"  On  the  other  hand,  had  not  Kiffin — as  it  is 
supposed — made  the  statement,  it  would  be 
suspicious  for  its  vagueness,  and  for  the  fact  that 
none  of  the  historians,  not  even  Wilson,  Calamy, 
Brook,   or    Neal,    know    anything    about  either 


154  DID   THEY   DIP  ? 

Blount  or  Blacklock,  beyond  what  is  here  stated." 

(P.  54). 
Armitage  says  of  the  entire  transaction: 
"  A  feeble  but  strained  attempt  has  been  made 
to  show  that  none  of  the  English  Baptists  prac- 
ticed immersion  prior  to  1641,  from  the  document 
mentioned  by  Crosby  in  1738,  of  which  he  re- 
marks that  it  was  *  said  to  be  written  by  Mr. 
William  Kiffin.'  Although  this  manuscript  is 
signed  by  fifty-three  persons,  it  is  evident  that  its 
authorship  was  only  guessed  at  from  the  begin- 
ning, it  may  or  may  not  hav-e  been  written  by 
Kiffin."     (History  of  the  Baptists,  p.  440). 

3.  No  authoritative  copy  of  this  manuscript  is 
known  to  be  in  existence  and  no  Baptist  historian, 
unless  we  may  call  Gould  such,  appears  to  have 
ever  seen  it.  Crosby  does  not  quote  it,  nor  does 
he  say  he  ever  saw  it,  but  he  only  makes  general 
statements  from  it  without  quoting  the  exact 
words.  Dr.  Whitsitt  makes  no  claim  of  having 
seen  this  manuscript.    His  reference  is  to  Crosby. 

4.  The  statements  in  the  quotation  are  vague 
and  uncertain.  It  only  speaks  of  "  several  sober 
and  pious  persons  belonging  to  the  Congregations 
of  the  dissenters  about  London."  There  is  noth- 
ing to  prove  that  these  persons  ever  organized  a 
Baptist  Church.  There  is  no  proof  that  Blount 
or  Blacklock  were  Baptist  preachers.  Their 
names  are  not  appended  to  the  Confession  of 
Faith  of  1644,  which  almost  certainly  would  have 
been  the  case  had  they  organized  the  first  Baptist 
Church  of  England  and  introduced  immersion 
among  them.     No  record  of  such  an  event  was 


THE  KIFFIN  MS.  AND  JESSEY  CHURCH  RECORDS.  15& 

kept,  and  the  only  reference  I  have  found  in  the 
century  to  it  is  in  the  words  of  Hutchinson,  1676, 
or  thirty-one  years  later,  who  reports  on  hearsay 
that  "  certain  messengers  went  to  Holland."  The 
dates  are  as  conflicting  as  the  so-called  facts., 
Barclay,  who  was  the  first  to  discover  the  "  inven- 
tion "  of  immersion  among  the  Baptists,  says 
Blount  went  to  Holland  in  1633.  Newman  puts 
the  date  1640  and  Dr.  Whitsitt  1641. 

Evans  says  : 

"  This  statement  is  vague.  We  have  no  date 
and  cannot  tell  whether  the  fact  refers  to  the 
Separatists  under  Mr.  Spilsbury  or  to  others." 
(History  Early  English  Baptists,  Vol.  H.,  p.  78). 

Dr.  A.  H.  Newman,  who  has  been  so  industri- 
ously quoted,  says: 

"  A  few  remarks  seem  called  for  by  the  obscu- 
rity of  some  of  the  statements  quoted  above.  It 
is  not  possible  out  of  the  material  that  has  thus 
far  come  to  the  light  to  trace  in  detail  the  evolu- 
tion of  the  seven  churches  that  signed  the  con- 
fession of  1644.  The  statement  quoted  from  the 
so-called  *  Kiffin  Manuscript '  with  reference  to 
the  division  of  1640  involves  a  number  of  difficul- 
ties. P.  Barebone,  with  whom  half  of  the  church 
withdrew,  has  commonly  been  regarded  by  Bap- 
tist writers  as  a  Baptist.  Yet  in  1642  he  pub- 
lished '  A  Discourse  tending  to  prove  the  Baptism 
in,  or  under,  the  Defection  of  Antichrist  to  be  the 
Ordinance  of  Jesus  Christ,  as  also  that  the  Bap- 
tism of  Infants  or  Children  is  Warrantable  and 
Agreeable  to  the  Word  of  God,'  and  in  1643  and 
1644  he  published  other  polemical  tracts  against 


156  DID   THEY   DIP  ? 

Antipedobaptism.  If  in  1641  he  was  the  leader 
of  the  Antipedobaptists  and  immersionist  half  of 
the  divided  congregation  he  must  soon  after  have 
abandoned  his  position.  This  is,  of  course,  pos- 
sible. From  the  construction  of  the  sentence 
Jessey  might  be  taken  to  be  the  leader  of  the 
Baptist  half,  but  it  appears  that  Jessey  did  not 
become  a  Baptist  till  five  years  later.  This  diffi- 
culty seems  inexplicable  without  further  mate- 
rial." (A  History  of  the  Baptist  Churches  in  the 
United  States,  pp.  52,  53). 

It  is  altogether  possible  that  these  "  dissent- 
ers "  may  not  have  known  that  there  were  im- 
mersionists  in  London,  and  that  such  persons 
may  have  lived  on  the  same  square  with  them. 
Under  the  persecutions  of  the  Court  of  High 
Commission  and  the  Court  of  Star  Chamber  it 
was  not  safe  for  one  to  announce  himself  a 
Baptist. 

6.  The  account  that  Hutchinson  gives  is  very 
different  from  the  so-called  Kiffin  Manuscript. 
He  makes  no  mention  of  dipping,  but  declares 
that  the  trouble  was  in  regard  to  an  administrator. 
The  edition  of  Hutchinson  from  which  I  quote 
bears  date,  London,  1676.    He  says: 

"  When  the  professors  of  these  nations  had  been  a  long 
time  wearied  with  the  yoke  of  superstitions,  cere- 
monies, traditions  of  men,  and  corrupt  mixtures 
in  the  worship  and  service  of  God,  it  pleased  the 
Lord  to  break  these  yokes  ^  and  by  a  very  stro?ig  im- 
pulse of  his  Spirit  upon  the  hearts  of  his  people,  to  con- 
vince them  of  the  necessity  of  Reformation.  Divers 
pious,  and  very  gracious  people ^  having  often  sought 


THE  KIFFIN  MS.  AND  JESSEY  CHURCH  RECORDS.        157 

the  Lord  by  fasting  and  prayer,  that  he  would  show 
them  the  pattern  of  his  house,    the   goi?igs-out   and 
comings-in  thereof   &c.     Resolved  {by  the  grace  of 
God),   not   to   receive   or   practice  any  piece  of 
positive  worship  which  had  not  precept  or  exam- 
ple from  the  word  of  God.     Infant-baptism  comi?ig 
of  course  under  consideration,  after  long  search  and 
many  debates,  it  was  fou?id  to  have  710  footing  in  the 
Scriptures  (the  only  rule  and  standard  to  try  doc- 
trines by);  but  on  the  contrary  a  mere  innovation, 
yea,  the  profanation  of  an  ordinance  of  God.     And 
though  it  was  proposed  to  be  laid  aside,  yet  what  fears, 
tremblings,  and  temptations  did  attend  them,  lest  they 
should  be  mistaken,  considering  how  many  learned 
and  godly  me7i  were  of  an  opposite  persuasion.     How 
gladly  would  they  have  had  the  rest  of  their  brethren 
gone  along  with  them.   But  when  there  was  no  hopes, 
they  concluded  that  a   Christian's  faith   must   not 
stand  in  the  wisdom  of  men;  and  that  every  one 
must  give  an  account  of  himself  to  God;  and  so 
resolved  to  practice  according  to  their  light.   The  great 
objection  was,  the  want  ofa?i  administrator;  which,  as 
I  have  heard,  was  removd  by  sending  certain  mes- 
sengers to  Hollafid,  whence  they  were  supplied."   (A 
Treatise  Concerning  the  Covenant  and  Baptism 
Dialogue-wise.     Epistle  to  the  Reader.    London, 
1676). 

There  is  no  question  about  the  authenticity  of 
this  work  of  Hutchinson  and  the  question  of 
"dipping  does  not  come  upon  the  boards."  The 
whole  question  hinged  upon  the  lawfulness  of 
infant  baptism  and  a  proper  administrator. 

7.     There   is    nothing   in    this   manuscript  to 


158  DID  THEY   DIP  ? 

prove  that  there  were  not  other  Baptists  in  Eng- 
land who  had  nothing  to  do  with  this  transaction. 
We  have  shown  that'-nhere  were  many  such 
churches.     Crosby  says: 

"  But  the  greatest  number  of  English  Baptists 
looked  upon  all  of  this  as  needless  trouble,  and 
what  proceeded  from  the  old  Popish  Doctrine  of 
right  to  administer  sacraments  by  an  uninterrupt- 
ed succession  which  neither  the  Church  of  Rome, 
nor  the  Church  of  England,  much  less  the  mod- 
ern Dissenters,  could  prove  to  be  with  them." 
(Vol.  I.,  p.  103). 

The  voice  of  Kiffin  himself  is  against  any  such 
interpretation  of  this  manuscript,  for  he  would 
not  have  contradicted  himself.  Kiffin  certainly 
said:    "It  is  well  knonw  to  many,  especially 

TO  OURSELVES,  THAT  OUR  CONGREGATIONS  WERE 
ERECTED    AND    FRAMED    ACCORDING    TO   THE    RULE 

OF  Christ,  before  we  heard  of  any  Reforma- 
tion."    (A  Brief  Remonstrance,  p.  11). 

I  do  not  think  it  possible  with  an  unauthenti- 
cated,  vague  statement  like  the  one  contained  in 
this  manuscript  to  revolutionize  Baptist  history. 
Neither  is  there  anything  new  in  all  this,  for  it 
was  recorded  long  ago  by  Crosby,  and  has  been 
before  the  Baptists  more  than  two  hundred  years. 
Dr.  Whitsitt  is  the  only  man  who  has  drawn  from 
it  such  startling  conclusions. 


SOME   WITNESSES.  159 


CHAPTER  IX. 

SOME    WITNESSES. 

Of  Mr.  Praise -God  Barebones.  Dr.  Whitsitt 
makes  great  use.  He  wrote,  if  indeed  he  is  the 
author,  two  books,  under  the  initials  P.  B.,  which 
appeared  in  1642-3.  Dr.  Whitsitt  claims  that 
while  he  was  not  a  Baptist,  as  some  other 
writers  supposed,  he  was  very  friendly  to  them. 
He  says: 

It  is  true  that  The  Baptist  EncyclopcEdia  has  blundered 
in  claiming  Mr.  Barebone  as  a  Baptist  minister,  yet  it  was 
not  a  very  great  blunder.  There  was  some  reason  for  this 
conclusion,  for  he  was  closely  connected  with  the  Baptists, 
having  been  a  member  of  the  Jessey  Church  prior  to  the 
year  1640.     (P.  102). 

Dr.  Whitsitt  further  says  that  he  was  answered 
by  R.  B.,  whom  he  claims  to  be  Richard  Blunt, 
of  which,  however,  there  is  no  proof.  After  read- 
ing this  eulogy  of  P.  B.,  I  turned  to  his  book  called 
"  A  Reply  to  the  Frivolous  and  impertinent 
Answer  of  R.  B.,  to  the  discourse  of  P.  B.," 
and  I  did  not  find  it  friendly  to  the  Baptists. 
It  was  altogether  hostile.  I  can  only  give  a  few 
of  his  phrases:  "  Boaster,"  "  liar,"  "  bray  a  fool," 
"  evil  dealing,"  "  willing  to  deceive,"  "  he  deals 
as  the  Divell  dealt  with  the  Lord,  keeps  back 
a  mayne  part,  and  so  the  shewing  the  mind 
to  smother  the  truth  and  keep  it  in  unrighteous- 
ness," etc.,  etc.  These  are  only  samples  that  are 
found  all  through  this  abusive  writer.  And  yet 
this  enemy  is  one  of  Dr.  Whitsitt's  principal 
witnesses. 


160  DID   THEY   DIP  ? 

I  charged,  through  The  Western  Recorder,  that 
Dr.  Whitsitt  copied  from  Dexter  his  quotation 
from  P.  B.,  as  found  in  The  Religious  Herald, 
May  7,  1896.  This  is  admitted,  for  in  the  book 
he  uses  an  entirely  different  form  of  the  quota- 
tion, as  follows: 

"  But  now  very  lately  some  are  mightily  taken  as  having 
found  out  a  new  defect  in  the  Baptisme  under  the  defection, 
which  maketh  such  a  nullitie  of  Baptisme  in  their  conceit 
that  it  is  none  at  all,  and  it  is  concerning  the  manner  of 
Baptizing  wherein  they  have  espyed  such  default  as  it 
maketh  an  absolute  nullity  of  all  person's  Baptisme  but 
such  as  have  been  so  Baptized  according  to  their  new  dis- 
covery;  and  so  partly  as  before  in  regard  of  the  subject  and 
partly  in  regard  of  so  great  default  in  the  manner:  They 
not  only  conclude  as  is  before  sayd  a  nullity  of  their  pres- 
ent Baptisme,  And  so  but  addresse  themselves  to  be  Bap- 
tized a  third  time  after  the  true  way  and  manner  they  have 
found  out,  which  they  account  a  precious  truth.  The  par- 
ticular of  their  opinion  and  practice  is  to  Dip,  and  that  per- 
sons are  to  be  Dipped,  all  and  every  part  to  be  under  the 
water,  for  if  all  the  whole  person  be  not  under  the  water 
then  they  hold  they  are  not  Baptized  with  the  Baptisme  of 
Christ.  As  for  sprinkling  or  pouring  water  on  the  face  it  is 
nothing  at  all  as  they  account,  and  so  measuring  themselves 
by  these  new  thoughts  as  unbaptized  they  addresse  them- 
selves to  take  it  up  after  the  manner  of  Dipping:  but  truly 
they  want  [lack]  a  Dipper  that  hath  authority  from  heaven, 
as  had  John  whom  they  please  to  call  a  Dipper,  of  whom  it 
is  sayd  that  it  might  be  manifested  his  Baptisme  was  from 
heaven.  A  man  can  receive  nothing,  that  is,  lawful  authority 
or  power  to  Baptize,  unlesse  it  be  given  from  heaven,  which 
I  desire  they  would  be  pleased  to  mind  and  they  will  easily 
see  their  third  baptism  is  from  the  earth  and  not  from 
heaven,  as  John's  was.  And  if  this  case  be  further  consid- 
ered it  will  appeare  at  the  most  to  be  but  a  defect  in  the 
manner  and  a  coming  short  in  the  quantity  of  the  Element. 
It  is  a  wonderful  thing  that  a  nullity  should  thereof  follow 
forthwith,  of  which  more  may  be  seen  in  the  same  case  be- 
fore. Againe  that  the  substance  of  an  Ordinance  of  so  high 
a  nature  and  great  concernment  should  be  founded  in  the 
criticknesse  of  a  word  and  in  the  quantity  of  an  element  is 
no  lesse  marveilous,  to  say  no  more.  Oh,  but  Baptisme  is  a 
Buriall  as  it  is  written,  We  are  buried  with  him  in  Baptisme. 
etc.,  and  we  are  raised  up  also  to  newness  of  life.  This 
Buriall  and  resurrection  only  Dipping  can  import  and  hold 


SOME  WITNESSES.  161 

forth But  inasmuch  as  this  is  a  very  new  way, 

and  the  full  growth  of  it  and  settling  is  not  yet  known,  if  it 
be  to  themselves,  yet  not  to  me  and  others:  I  will  forbeare 
to  say  further  to  it."    (Pp.  12,  13,  15). 

The  extract  taken  from  Dexter  had  been  terri- 
bly garbled.  Sentences  had  been  taken  from  dif- 
ferent parts  of  the  book  and  pieced  together,  and 
sometimes  the  sentences  did  not  even  stop  with  a 
comma.  The  exact  form  of  the  quotation  as  given 
above  may  be  found  in  The  I?idepende?it,  Oct.  7, 
1880.  The  article  appeared  as  an  editorial,  and 
the  author's  name  does  not  appear ;  but  Dr. 
Whitsitt  very  closely  follows  the  line  of  proof  and 
quotations  in  that  editorial  and  some  dozen  others 
which  may  be  found  in  The  Indepe7ident  from  June 
24,  1880,  to  Dec.  13,  1883.  But  this  quotation  does 
not  sustain  Dr.  Whitsitt's  contention,  for  P.  B. 
was  not  discussing  the  newness  of  dipping,  but  a 
proper  administrator  and  rebaptism.  And  he 
taunts  his  opponent  in  "A  Reply,  To  the 
Reader,"   London,    1643,   with: 

"A  man  that  had  a  minde  to  come  to  R.  B.  in 
his  third  Baptisme,  before  a  yeare  or  two  spent 
in  the  serious  weighing  of  the  matter,  would  find 
happily  that  R.  B.  had  left  his  third  Baptisme, 
and  taken  up  a  church." 

But  P.  B.  did  not  think  dipping  was  a  new 
thing.  In  the  quotation  as  given  are  found  some 
dots.  Those  dots  indicate  the  omission  of  a  sig- 
nificant statement.  P.  B.  there  declares  that  dip- 
ping was  not  a  new  thing.     He  says: 

"The  Romanists,  some  of  them,  and  some  of 
the  poor  ignorant  Welsh  do  use  dipping." 
11 


162  DID  THEY   DIP  ? 

And  in  A  Reply  he  asks  whether  they  learned 
dipping  from  the  Romanists  or  the  Welsh? 

1.  I  do  not  regard  this  anonymous  author,  P. 
B.,  as  of  any  weight.  One  of  the  officials  of  the 
British  Museum  wrote  me:  "The  book  is  not 
considered  here  as  of  any  particular  value,  only 
an  ordinary  controversial  pamphlet."  His  name, 
Praise-God  Barebones,  is  enough  to  condemn 
him.  It  is  said  his  two  brothers  assumed  the 
names,  respectively,  of  "  Christ  came  into  the 
World  to  save  Barebones"  and  "  If  Christ  had 
not  Died  Thou  hadst  been  Damned  Barebones." 
I  am  surprised  that  any  one  would  quote  such  an 
author  as  decisive  on  any  point.  Yet  this  man  is 
one  of  Dr.  Whitsitt's  chief  witnesses. 

2.  It  is  perfectly  apparent  that  the  words  of 
P.  B.  have  been  wofully  misused.  It  leads  us  to 
suspect  that  all  the  authors  that  Dr.  Whitsitt  has 
quoted  need  further  light  thrown  on  them.  Even 
as  quoted  by  Dexter,  P.  B.  does  not  sustain  Dr. 
Whitsitt's  theory;  and  the  original  is  certainly 
against  him. 

3.  "Praise-God  Barebones"  defended  sprink- 
ling, but  he  nowhere  says  dipping  was  a  new 
thing.  That  it  was  practiced  in  the  days  of  the 
apostles,  that  it  was  used  in  hot  countries,  that 
"the  Romanists,  some  of  them,  and  some  of  the 
poor  ignorant  Welsh  do  use  dipping."  He  was  a 
Pedobaptist,  and  believed  in  sprinkling,  and  so 
tried  to  refute  the  opinion  of  the  Anabaptists  on 
dipping;  but  he  does  not  declare  that  dipping  or 
a  denial  of  infant  baptism  to  be  a  new  thing. 
"The  new  way  of  Baptizing,"  or  as  it  is  called 


SOME   WITNESSES.  163 

here  "  the  new  dipping,"  because  the  act  had 
been  repeated,  over  and  over  again,  in  his  book 
he  declares  to  be  rebaptizing,  or  denying  the  per- 
petuity of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church. 

Thomas  Kilcop,  a  Baptist,  1642,  who  wrote  a  book 
called  "  A  Short  Treatise  on  Baptisme,"  does  not 
think  so  highly  of  '*  Praise-God  Barebones  "  as  Dr. 
Whitsitt  does.  He  says  he  spoke  "  evil  of  us," 
and  his  "  sin  was  open."  Dr.  Dexter  is  surprised 
that  Kilcop  in  replying  to  P.  B.  "  makes  no  allu- 
sion whatever  to  Barbon's  charge  of  the  newness 
of  the  dipping  way."  (True  Story  of  John  Smyth, 
p.  48).  To  me  there  is  nothing  strange  in  this,  for 
the  simple  reason  "  Barbon,"  or  P.  B.,  had  made 
no  such  charge.  This  position  of  Kilcop's  is  in 
full  confirmation  of  the  position  that  I  took  in  re- 
gard to  P.  B.,  that  the  discussion  was  in  regard 
to  the  authority  of  the  baptism  of  Rome.  But  Dr. 
Whitsitt  is  very  brave  and  says: 

One  of  our  moderns  would  have  denied  out  of  hand  that 
adult  immersion  had  ever  become  extinct  in  England;  but 
Mr.  Kilcop  knew  more  about  the  matter.  He  conceded 
that  point  without  any  question,  and  argued  that  even 
though  immersion  had  become  extinct  the  Baptists  had  as 
much  right  '  to  erect  baptisme'  as  the  Independents  had  *  to 
erect  a  church  state.'  It  would  be  impossible  for  a  man  to 
urge  an  argument  like  this,  who  took  immersion  for  granted; 
on  the  contrary,  that  was  the  very  thing  he  did  not  take  for 
granted.     (P.  121). 

The  only  reference   that   Dr.  Whitsitt  gives  is 

out  of  Dexter,  and  after  reading  this  statement  of 

Dr.  Whitsitt  I  have   not   only   examined   Dexter 

but  have  read  Kilcop's  book  through,  and  I  find 

nothing  like   such   conclusions.     As  a  matter  of 

fact,  the  first  thing  Kilcop  does  after  announcing 

his  text  is  to  declare  that  "  Baptisme  is  a  Greek 


164  DID   THEY   DIP  ? 

word  and  most  properly  signifies  dipping  in  Eng- 
lish; and  therefore  the  parties  baptised  are  said  to 
be  baptised  not  at,  but  in,  Jordan.  Then  note,  that 
the  baptizing  or  dipping  in  water  belongs  to 
Christ's  disciples  and  none  else."     (P.  i). 

And  there  is  not  another  word  that  I  have  found 
about  dipping  in  the  book.  Certainly  this  is  tak- 
ing dipping  for  granted,  and  certainly  there  is 
nothing  that  would  intimate  that  dipping  was  a 
new  thing. 

The  testimony  of  Edward  Barber,  1641,  to  im- 
mersion is  clear  and  decisive.  Throughout  this 
discussion  Barber  takes  dipping  for  granted  and 
gives  reasons  why  infant  baptism  should  not  pre- 
vail. The  full  title  of  his  book  is:  *"  A  small 
treatise  of  baptisme,  or  dipping,  wherein  is  cleere- 
ly  shewed  that  the  Lord  Christ  ordained  dipping 
for  those  only  that  profess  repentance  and  faith. 
I.  Proved  by  scriptures.  2.  By  arguments.  3. 
A  paralell  betwixt  circumcision  and  dipping.  4. 
An  answere  to  some  objections  by  P.  B.  Psal. 
119,  130.  By  Edward  Barber.  Printed  in  the 
yeare  1641." 

I  give  a  few  extracts  from  Barber,  and  many 
more  might  be  added: 

"  The  thesis  that  '  Christ  ordained  dipping  for 
those  only  that  profess  repentance  and  faith'  is 
mentioned  under  four  heads,  viz.:  'i.  Proved  by 
Scriptures.  2.  By  Arguments.  3.  A  Parallel  be- 
twixt circumcision  and  Dipping.  4.  An  Answere 
to  some  objections  by  P.  B.    Psal.  119.  130.' " 

*  I  quote  from  the  original,  but  a  reprint  may  be  had  from  the 
Baptist  Book  Concern,  Louisville.  Ky.,  for  10  cents. 


SOME   WITNESSES.  165 

"  But  the  dipping  of  beleevers  is  that  good  old 
way  of  Christ,  and  infants  is  not."  (P.  14). 

*•  But  for  infants'  dipping  there  is  no  expresse 
description  of  the  persons,  condition,  time,  where- 
as true  dipping,  which  is  that  one  dipping  Ephes. 
4.  5.,  which  is  the  dipping  of  repentance  for  remis- 
sion of  sinnes,  Mark  I.  4.  it  is  most  evidently 
and  faithfully  set  down  for  persons,  conditions 
and  times,  viz.,"  etc.    (P.  15). 

"Thus  for  true  dipping  there  is  a  certain  time 
appointed  as  was  for  circumcision.  Acts  8.  37.  yea 
commanded,  Acts  10.  48."     (P.  16). 

"  So  that  this  covenant  standeth  between  God 
and  man,  manifested  by  Holy  Writ  is:  That  as 
there  is  but  one  Lord;  one  Faith;  and  one  Dip- 
ping, Eph.  4.  5.  which  is  the  Dipping  of  Repent- 
ance for  Remission  of  sinnes,  Mark  i.  4.  so  there 
is  but  one  way  of  entrance  into  the  Covenant 
under  the  Gospel,"  etc.    (P.  18). 

"  Quest.  5.  But  what  is  the  true  ordinance  of 
the  dipping  of  Christ,  and  wherein  doth  it  differ 
from  childrens  Dipping,  which  is  the  best  way  to 
show  the  truth;  and  what  benefit  doth  Beleevers 
receive  by  it."    (P.  19). 

"  Eighthly,  that  the  Beleever  may  in  that  day 
roll  away  all  the  reproach  of  Egypt,  or  Antichris- 
tianisme,  renouncing  the  marke  of  the  Beast  in 
our  right  hands,  by  holding  or  fighting  for  him,  or 
in  our  forehead.  Revel.  13.  14.  by  dipping  of 
Infants,  that  false  Constitution  of  Rome  to  beget 
grece,  thus  it  is  cleere:  who  are  the  true  subjects 
of  Dipping,  And  who  are  not."  (P.  21). 

"  In  shcwt,  all  these  holy  ends  that  God  aimed 


166  DID   THEY    DIP  ? 

at  in  true  dipping,  are  wholly  made  voide,  and  of 
no  effect  in  the  dipping  of  Infants,  which  the 
Lord  ^y^m/ commanded  not.  Jere.  7.3.  i.  Revel. 
22.  18.  Matth.  28.  19.  20.  nor  came  into  hisheart." 
(P.  22). 

"  6.  If  the  dipping  of  Infants  be  God's  Ordi- 
nance, Christ  was  not  so  faithful!  over  his  House 
a  Sonne,  as  Moses  a  servant  was;  For  Moses  made 
and  set  out  all  things,  according  to  the  patterne, 
Heb.  8.  5.  but  if  Christ  received  any  patterne  for 
dipping  infants,  he  hath  left  no  rule  for  it,  by 
precept,  or  example."  (P.  23). 

"  But  the  dipping  of  Infants  was  never  heard  of 
in  all  the  Institutions  of  Christ,  or  preachings  of 
the  Apostles,"  etc.    (P.  30). 

The  book  nowhere   intimates  that  there  were 

ever  any   Baptists  who   practiced  sprinkling,  or 

that  the  immersion  of  believers  was  a  new  thing. 

Dr.  Whitsitt  makes  the  following  quotation  from 

Barber: 

Beloved  Reader,  it  may  seem  strange  that  in  these 
times  when  such  abundance  of  Knowledge  of  the  Gospell  Is 
professed  in  the  World,  that  there  should  notwithstanding 
be  generally  such  ignorance,  especially  in  and  amongst  those 
that  professe  themselves  Ministers  thereof,  of  that  glorious 
principle  True  Baptis7ne  or  Dipping,  Ephe.  4,  5,  Instituted 
by  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  which  all  that  look— for  life  and 
salvation  by  him  ought  to  be  partakers  of;  it  being  that 
onely  which  was  received  by  the  Apostles  and  Primitive 
Churches,  and  for  a  long  time  unviolably  kept  and  prac- 
ticed by  the  Ministerie  of  the  Gospel  in  the  planting  of  the 
first  Churches,  and  that  the  Lord  should  raise  up  mee  a 
poore  Tradesman  to  devulge  this  glorious  Truth,  to  the 
World's  Censuring.    (Pp.  112,  113). 

Even  if  Barber  had  said  that  believers'  immer- 
sion was  a  new  thing  in  England  that  would  not 
have  made  it  so.  Prof.  Vedder  makes  answer  to 
this  point: 


SOME   WITNESSES.  167 

"  But  a  thing  is  not  necessarily  true  because 
Barber  says  it;  he  was — as  he  frankly  confesses, 
and  his  treatise  attests  it — an  unlearned  man,  and 
was  not  acquainted  with  the  history  or  literature 
of  his  own  people.  We  positively  know  that  he 
was  not  the  first  to  '  devulge  this  glorious  truth.'" 

But  I  can  reply  more  directly  in  two  ways: 

1.  The  word  devulge  does  not  mean  to  make 
known  a  thing  for  the  first  time.  It  does  not 
mean  that  Barber  was  a  discoverer.  The  word 
means  only  to  publish  a  thing,  according  to  Web- 
ster, and  it  may  or  may  not  have  been  known  be- 
fore. Henry  Denne,  who  was  baptized  in  1643, 
and  had  been  since  that  date  a  preacher,  was  sent 
on  a  special  mission,  by  the  Baptist  Church  at 
Fenstanton,  October  28,  1653,  and  it  is  said  of 
him: 

**  On  that  day  he  was  chosen  and  ordained,  by 
imposition  of  hands,  a  messenger  to  divulge  the 
Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ."  (Adam  Taylor's  His- 
tory General  Baptists,  Vol.  i.,  p.  150). 

No  one  would  fail  to  know  that  the  word 
meant  in  this  passage  simply  to  proclaim. 

2.  The  thing  that  Barber  was  to  divulge,  and 
his  whole  treaty  shows  it,  was  not  dipping,  but 
believers'  baptism.  He  had  been  imprisoned  for 
denying  infant  baptism  and  his  release  gave  him 
an  opportunity  for  affirming  believers'  baptism. 
His  words  are: 

''By  Edward  Yy^^xh^x  .Citizen,  and  Merchant-Taylor 
of  London;  late  Priso?ier,'  for  denying  the  spri?ikli?ig 
of  hifaiits,  and  requiriftg  tithes  ?iow  under  the  Gospel 
to  be  Gods  Ordinance  T 


168  DID   THEY   DIP  ? 

There  is  not  a  word  in  this  entire  book  which 
could  by  any  possible  construction  be  forced  to 
mean  that  immersion  was  a  new  thing.  Indeed, 
in  the  very  passage  that  Dr.  Whitsitt  quotes 
Barber  claims: 

"  Instituted  by  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  which  all 
that  look  for  life  and  Salvation  by  him  ought  to 
be  partakers  of,  it  being  that  onely  which  was  re- 
ceived by  the  Apostles  and  Primitive  Churches, 
and  for  a  long  time  unviolably  kept  and  practiced 
by  the  ministerie  of  the  Gospel  in  the  planting  of 
the  first  Churches." 

But  what  about  Barber  himself?  Crosby  de- 
clares that  he  was  baptized  long  before  1641,  and 
thus  we  have  another  witness  to  immersion  before 
164 1.     Crosby  says: 

"  Mr.  Edward  Barber,  a  gentleman  of  great 
learning,  was  first  a  minister  in  the  established 
church,  and  embraced  the  principles  of  the  Bap- 
tists, long  before  the  breaking  out  of  the  civil 
wars.  He  was  the  means  of  convincing  many 
that  infant  baptism  had  no  foundation  in  Script- 
ure, and  soon  gathered  a  numerous  congrega- 
tion."    (Vol.  III.,  p.  3). 

A  very  scholarly  Baptist  of  those  times  was  A. 
R.,  1642,  who  wrote  two  books  on  the  Vanity  and 
Childishness  of  Infants  Baptisme.  The  first  book 
was  against  infant  baptism  as  held  in  the  Episco- 
pal Church  and  the  second  as  held  by  Dissenters. 
A.  R.  readily  refers  to  the  Greek  language.  In 
the  first  part,  in  the  beginning,  there  is  a  discus- 
sion of  dipping.  There  is  no  intimation  that  it  is 
a  new  thing.     Indeed,  every  argument  presented 


SOME   WITNESSES.  169 

by  A.  R.  might  be  profitably  used  by  a  Baptist 
author  of  today.  But  Dr.  Whitsitt  makes  a  char- 
acteristic mistake.     He  says: 

The  work  of  A.  R.,  which  comes  under  notice  in  this 
place,  is  entitled:  The  Second  Part  of  the  Vanity  and 
Childishness  of  Infants  Baptisme,  London,  1642.  On 
page  29  of  this  Second  Part  Dr.  Dexter  has  found  the  fol- 
lowing quotation,  which  demonstrates  that  A.  R.  did  not 
take  immersion  for  granted.    (P.  119). 

Dr.  Whitsitt  here  copies  Dexter,  mistake  and 
all,  and  without  any  apparent  effort  to  verify  the 
passage.  There  is  no  such  quotation  in  "the  sec- 
ond part"  of  A.  R.'s  book.  This  so-called  quota- 
tion is  found  in  the  first  part.  This  goes  to  show 
that  Drs.  Dexter  and  Whitsitt  are  not  accurate, 
and  that  they  cannot  be  depended  upon  But  as 
a  matter  of  fact  words  have  been  placed  in  this 
quotation  which  change  the  meaning  of  the 
author. 

Dr.  Whitsitt's  ver-  A.  R.'s  Words,  1642: 
sion,  1896:  And  if  any  shall  think  it 

If    any    shall    thinke    it      strange  and  unlikely  that  all 
strange  and    unlikely    that      Jhe    godliest    Divines    and 
all  the  godliest  Divines  and      best    churches     should     be 
best  churches  should  be  thus      thus  deceived  on  this  point 
deceived    on   this   point   of      of    baptism    for   so   m  a  n  y 
baptisme    for     so     many      y.eares  together,  let  him  con- 
yeares    together    [i.    e..    as      f^^er  that  all  Chnstendome 
hever  before  to  know  that      (except  here  and  there  one, 
true  baptism  is  dipping  and      or  som^    few    or    no    con- 
dipping  alone  true  baptism];      fiderable  number)  was  swal- 
let  them  consider  that  all      l^^ed  up  m  grosse  Popery 
Cristendome    (except    here      Jor    many   hundred   yeares 
and  there  one.  or  some  few.      before  Luther  s  time,  which 
or  no  considerable  number)      was    not    until    about     100 
was  swallowed  up  in  grosse      yeares   agone. 
Popery  for  many  hundred 
yeares  before  Luther's  time, 
which  was    not  until  about 
100  yeares  agone.    (Dexter. 
True  Story,  p.  49). 


170  DID   THEY   DIP  ? 

You  will  notice  that  the  words  have  been 
added:  ["i.  e.,  as  never  before  to  know  that  true 
baptism  is  dipping  and  dipping  alone  true  bap- 
tism."] There  is  not  a  word  about  dipping  in  this 
quotation  from  A.  R.  nor  for  pages  near  it.  The 
author  has  been  made  to  say  things  he  did  not 
say.  A.  R.  is  singularly  clear  on  dipping,  but  he 
did  not  have  dipping  under  discussion  at  this  time. 
This  is  manufactured  testimony. 

A.  R.  met  with  a  very  bitter  opponent  by  the 
name  of  William  Cooke.  Although  he  called  his 
book  a  "Learned  and  Full  Answer  to  a  Treatise 
Intitled;  the  Vanity  of  Childish  Baptisme"  it  is 
very  certain  he  knew  little  of  the  Baptists  and 
that  he  was  a  very  bitter  enemy.  I  give  in  full 
his  third  and  fourth  reasons  against  dipping  as 
practiced  by  the  Baptists: 

"Thirdly,  this  dousing  over  head,  and  under 
water  that  A.  R.  pleads  for,  as  essential  to  bap- 
tisme, seems  directly  against  the  Sixth  Com- 
mandment, and  exposeth  the  person  baptized  to 
the  danger  of  death.  For  first,  suppose  the  party 
be  fit  for  baptism  (as  they  account)  in  the  sharpe 
Winter  as  now  beleeving,  professing,  &c.  He 
must  immediately  be  taken  to  the  'river  (as  his 
tenet  seems  to  hold)  and  there  plunged  in  over 
head  and  eares,  though  he  came  forth  covered 
with  yce.  But  if  he  escaped  perishing  with  cold; 
how  can  he  escape  being  choaked  and  stifified 
with  the  water,  to  signifie  his  buriall:  and,  thirdly, 
be  taken  up,  as  this  Disputer  seems  to  reason? 
But  whatsoever  be  the  danger  of  freezing,  or  suf- 
focation; it  seems  this  he  holds  the  onely  bap- 


SOME   WITNESSES. 


171 


tisme,  and  must  not  therefore  be  swerved  from.'* 
Then  follows  the  fourth  reason  which  Dr.  Whit- 
sitt  partly  quotes;  but  he  omits  matters  which  are 
necessary  to  a  complete  understanding  of  this 
fourth  reason.  I  will  place  side  by  side  the  origi- 
nal and  Dr.  Whitsitt's  version. 


William  Cooke's 
words,  1644  : 

Fourthly,  will  not  this  their 
new  manner  of  dipping  be 
found  also  against  the  Sev- 
enth Commandment  in  the 
Decalogue?  For  I  would 
know  with  these  new  dip- 
pers, whether  the  parties  to 
be  dowsed  and  dipped,  may 
be  baptized  in  a  garment  or 
no?  If  they  may,  then  hap- 
pily the  garment  may  keep, 
the  water  from  some  part  of 
the  body,  and  then  they  are 
not  rightly  baptized;  for  the 
whole  man,  say  they,  must 
be  dipped.  Againe,  I  would 
aske  what  warrant  they  have 
for  dipping,  or  baptizing 
garments,  more  than  the 
Papists  have  for  baptizing 
Bells?  Therefore  belike  the 
parties  must  be  naked,  and 
multitudes  present  as  at 
John's  baptisme,  and  the 
parties  men  and  women  of 
ripe  yeares,  as  being  able  to 
make  confession  of  their 
faith  and  repentance:  yet 
though  they  both  sinne 
against  the  Sixth  Com- 
mandment, indangering  life, 
and  against  all  common 
honestie  and  civilitie,  and 
Christian  modestie  required 
in  the  Seventh  Command- 
ment, they  must  have  this 
way  observed,  because  they 


Dr.   Whitsitt's    ver- 
sion, 1896: 

Fourthly,  will  not  this 
their  manner  of  dipping  be 
found  also  against  the  Sev- 
enth Commandment  in  the 
Decalogue?  For  I  would 
know  with  these  new  dip- 
pers whether  the  parties  to 
be  dowsed  and  dipped  may 
be  baptized  in  a  garment  or 
no?  If  they  may  then  hap- 
pily the  garment  may  keep 
the  water  from  some  part  of 
the  body,  and  then  they  are 
not  rightly  baptized;  for  the 
whole  man,  say  they,  must 
be  dipped.  Againe,  I  would 
aske  what  warrant  they 
have  for  dipping  or  bap- 
tizing garments,  more  than 
the  Paptists  have  for  bap- 
tizing Bells?  Therefore  be- 
like the  parties  must  be 
naked  and  multitudes  pres- 
ent as  at  John's  baptisme, 
and  the  parties  men  and 
women  of  ripe  yeares,  as 
being  able  to  make  a  con- 
fession of  their  faith  and  re- 
pentance," etc.    (Pp.  21,  22). 


172  DID   THEY   DIP  ? 

fancie  it  the  onely  bap- 
tisme.  Shall  we  thinke  this 
way  the  baptisme  of  John, 
Christ  and  his  Apostles?" 
<Pp.  21,22). 

And  this  is  the  witness?  An  enemy,  a  man 
who  must  sustain  his  position  by  slander,  and 
manifestly  betrays  ignorance.  If  his  information 
had  been  equal  to  his  knowledge  his  testimony 
would  have  been  conclusive.  Any  one  would 
know  that  these  slanderous  statements  are  justi- 
fied by  no  facts.  And  even  this  witness  does  not 
sustain  Dr.  Whitsitt.  He  says  nothing  about  1641, 
and  while  he  calls  dipping  new  he  likewise  makes 
the  assertion  that  the  Scriptures  teach  sprinkling. 
This  is  the  only  date  he  mentions.  Does  he 
mean  that  dipping  is  "new,"  since  it  was  not 
taught  in  the  Scriptures?  And  then  dipping 
might  have  been  "new"  to  him,  and  with  his 
knowledge  of  the  Baptists  it  may  have  been  prac- 
ticed among  them  for  a  long  time.  He  manifestly 
was  ignorant  of  their  rites  and  ceremonies. 

The  Baptists  in  1641  had  a  resolute  and  violent 
opponent  in  the  person  of  Daniel  Featley.  He 
was  born  in  1582,  and  died  in  1645.  He  was  long 
the  determined  opponent  of  the  Baptists.  In  1642 
he  held  a  discussion  with  four  Baptists  in  South- 
wark.  His  account  of  the  discussion  is  to  be 
found  in  "The  Dippers  Dipt;  or,  the  Anabaptists 
Duckt  and  Plunged  Over  Head  and  Ears  at  a  Dis- 
putation at  Southwark."  I  have  examined  the 
first  three  and  the  sixth  editions  of  this  work. 
He  was  so  bitter  that  he  declared:  "  I  could  hardly 
dip  my  pen  in  any  thing  but  gall."     He  nowhere 


SOME   WITNESSES.  173 

intimates  that  the  Baptists  or  dipping  were  novel- 
ties.    In  the  Epistle  Dedicatory,  Featley  says: 

"  Now,  of  all  Hereticks  and  Schismaticks,  tlie  Ana- 
baptist in  three  regards  ought  to  bee  most  careftdly 
looked  into,  and  severely  ptmished,  if  not  utterly 
exterminated  aiid  banished  out  of  the  Church  and 
Kingdom!' 

His  reasons  are  as  follows: 

**  First,  hi  regard  of  their  affinity  with  many  other 
damnable  Heretiques,  both  Aficient  afid  Later,  for  they 
are  ally^d  unto,  a?id  may  claim  kindred  with." 

And  then  he  gives  a  catalogue  of  all  manner 
of  heretics: 

"  Secondly.  In  regard  of  their  audacious  attempts 
upon  Church  and  State,  and  their  i?isolent  acts  com- 
mitted in  the  face  of  the  Sun,  and  in  the  eye  of  the 
high  Court  of  Parliament!' 

Under  this  second  heading  Featley  says: 

"  They  preach,  and  print,  and  practise  their  He- 
reticall  impieties  openly,  and  hold  their  Co?ive?iticles 
weekly  i?i  our  chief  Cities,  and  Suburbs  thereof,  and 
there  prophesie  by  turnes ;  and  {that  I  may  use  the 
phrase  ^/ Tertullian)  aedificantur  in  ruinam,  they 
build  one  another  in  the  faith  of  their  Sect,  to  the 
mine  of  their  souls;  they  flock  in  great  multitudes 
to  their  Jordans,  a7id  both  Sexes  enter  into  the  River,^ 
and  are  dipt  after  their  manner,  with  a  kind 
of  spell  containing  the  head  of  their  erroneous  Tenets, 
and  thAr  engageing  themselves  in  their  Scismaticall 
Covena?its,  and  {if  I  7nay  so  speake)  combination 
of  separation.  A?id  as  they  defile  our  Rivers  with 
their  impure  washhigs,  and  our  Pulpits  with  their 
false  Prophecies,  atid  Phanaticall  Enthusiasmes,  so  the 


174  DID   THEY    DIP  ? 

Presses  sweat  and  groane  imder  the  load  of  their 
blasphemies.  For  they  print  not  only  Anabaptisme , 
from  whence  they  take  their  name ;  but  many  other 
most  da^nnable  doctrineSy  tendiiig  to  carnall  liberty, 
Familisme,  and  a  medley  a7id  hodge-podge  of  all 
Religions!' 

"  Thirdly.  In  regard  to  the  peculiar  7nalig?iity  this 
heresie  hath  to  magistracy,''  etc. 

He  then  proceeds  to  say  that  "  with  these 
Hereticks  I  enter  into  Lists  in  the  ensuing 
Tractate."  He  then  proceeds  to  tell  us  that  he 
has  known  these  ''  new  upstart  sectaries "  for 
twenty  years  near  his  own  home.  His  words 
are : 

"  As  Solinus  writeth,  that  in  Sardinia  where  there 
is  a  venemous  serpent  called  Solifuga,  {whose  biti?ig 
is  present  death)  there  is  also  at  hand  a  fountain,  i?t 
which  they  who  wash  themselves  after  they  are 
bit,  are  presently  cured.  This  venemous  serpent  {vere 
Solifuga)  flying  from,  and  shunning  the  light  of  God' s 
Word,  is  the  Anabaptist,  who  in  these  later  times  first 
shewed  his  shini7ig  head  ajid  speckled  ski?i,  a?id  thrust 
■out  his  sting  near  the  place  of  my  residence  for  7nore 
tha7i  twe7ity  yeers." 

Here  we  have  the  explicit  testimony  of  Featley 
that  the  Baptists  were  dippers  as  far  back  as 
1620      Prof.  Vedder  very  truthfully  says: 

"  These  words  of  Dr.  Featley  are  specially 
significant.  He  professes  to  speak  of  Baptists 
from  personal  knowlege,  and  though  he  was 
bitterly  prejudiced,  there  is  no  reason  why  he 
should  exaggerate  in  such  a  particular.  Since  he 
wrote  in  1644,  his  'twenty  years/  however  care- 


SOME   WITNESSES.  175 

lessly  he  used  the   phrase,  evidently   carry  the 
date  of  immersion  far  back  of  164 1." 

There  is  also  a  conclusive  passage  in  The  Pref- 
ace to  the  Reader.  By  leaving  off  some  sentences 
Dr.  Whitsitt  makes  Featley  give  a  date  to  the  in- 
troduction of  immersion  in  England  which  Feat- 
ley  does  not  give.  Featley  begins  with  the  Ana- 
baptists in  Germany  in  the  time  of  Stock;  that  he 
was  a  blockhead  and  kindled  a  fire  out  of  the 
chips  from  this  block,  that  this  fire  was  in  Eng- 
land in  the  time  of  Elizabeth  and  other  sov- 
ereigns, and  that  lately  it  has  burned  very 
brightly.  This  is  a  very  different  thing  from  what 
Dr.  Whitsitt  makes  Featley  say.  I  give  the  two 
versions  in  parallel  columns. 

Featley's  words,  1644 :         Dr.  Whitsitt's  version. 

Of  whom  we  77iay  say,  1896: 
as  Irenaeus  sometime  spake 
of  the  Heretick  Ebon,  the 
Father  of  the  Ebonites,  his 
name  in  the  Hebrew  signi- 
fyeth  silly,  or  simple,  and 
such  God  wat  was  he:  So 
we  may  say,  the  name  of  the 
father  of  the  Anabaptists 
signifieth  in  English  a  sense- 
lesse  piece  of  wood  <?;- block, 
a7id  a  very  blockhead  was 
he:  yet  out  of  this  block  were 
cut  those  chips  that  kindled 
such  a  fire  in  Germany,  Hal- 
satia,  and  Suevia  that  could 
7iot  be  fully  gue7tched,  no  ?iot 
with  the  b loud  of  1^0,000.  of 
thein  killed  in  war,  or  put  to 
death  i7i  severall  places  by 
Magistrates. 

This  fire  in  the  reigns  of 
Q.  Elizabeth  and  K.  James 
and  our  gracious  Sovereign, 
till  now,  was  covered  in  Eng- 


176 


DID   THEY   DIP  ? 


But  of  late,  he  says, 
since  the  unhappy  distrac- 
tions which  our  sins  have 
brought  upon  us,  the  Tempo- 
rail  Sword  being  other  ways 
employed  a7id  the  Spirituall 
locked  up  fast  in  the  Scab- 
bard, this  sect  among  others 
hath  so  far  presumed  upon 
the  patience  of  the  State  that 
it  hath  held  weekly  Con- 
venticles, rebaptized  hun- 
dreds of  men  and  women  to- 
gether in  the  twilight,  in 
Rivelets  and  some  arms  of 
the  Thames  and  Elsewhere, 
dipping  them  over  head  and 
ears. 


land  under  the  ashes  ;  or  if 
it  brake  out  at  any  time,  by 
the  care  of  the  Ecclesiasticall 
and  Civil  Magistrate,  it  was 
S0071  put  out.  But  of  late 
since  the  tmhappy  distrac- 
tions which  our  sins  have 
brought  upon  us,  the  Tempo- 
rail  Sword  being  other  ways 
employed,  attd  the  Spirituall 
locked  up  fast  in  the  scab- 
berd,  this  sect,  among  others, 
hath  so  far  prestimed  upon 
the  patietice  of  the  State  that 
it  hath  held  weekly  Co7iven- 
ticles,  re-baptized  hundreds 
of  men  and  women  together 
in  the  twilight  in  Rivilets, 
and  some  arms  of  the  Thames 
and  elseiv here,  dipping  the?n 
over  head  and  ears.  It  hath 
Printed  divers  pamphlets  in 
defense  of  their  Heresie,  yea 
and  chcLllenged  sojne  of  our 
Preachers  to  disputation. 
Now  although  my  bent  hath 
been  hitherto  against  the 
most  dangerous  enemy  of  our 
Church  and  State,  the  fe suit, 
to  extinguish  such  balls  of 
wildfire  as  they  have  cast  in 
the  bosome  of  our  Church, 
yet  seeijig  this  strange  fire 
kindled  in  the  neighbouring 
parishes,  and  many  Nadabs 
and  Abihu's  offering  it  on 
God's  Altar,  /  thought  it  my 
duty  to  cast  the  waters  of 
Siloam  upon  it  to  extinguish 
it. 

There  is  still  another  proof  from  Featley  that 
the  Baptists  dipped  and  that  dipping  was  the 
practice  of  the  Anabaptists  on  the  Continent  and 
in  England  from  the  time  of  Henry  VIII.  Feat- 
ley  was  answering  a  tract,  which  we  quote  in  an- 
other place,  written  by  A.  R.      The  title  of  this 


SOME  WITNESSES.  177 

book  was  the  Vanity  of  Childrens  Baptisme,  in 
which  the  author  declares  dipping  to  be  the  only 
act  of  baptism.  Featley  does  not  deny  that  this 
was  the  way  the  Anabaptists  performed  this  act 
nor  does  he  say  that  it  was  a  new  thing,  but  rather 
affirms  what  the  author  says  and  goes  on  to  de- 
clare that  the  Anabaptists  always  dipped.  You 
will  remember  that  A.  R.  wrote  in  the  year  1642, 
and  here  is  the  answer  that  Featley  makes  to  this 
English  Baptist: 

"  At  Ziirick  after  many  disputations  between 
Zuinglius  and  the  y^w^baptists,  the  Senate  made 
an  Act,  that  if  any  presumed  to  rebaptize  those 
that  were  baptized  before,  they  should  be 
drowned. 

"  At  Vienjia  many  A?iabaptists  were  so  tyed  to- 
gether in  chains,  that  one  drew  the  other  after 
him  into  the  river,  wherein  they  were  all  suffo- 
cated.    {Vide  Stipra,  p.  61). 

'*  Here  you  may  see  the  hand  of  God  in  pun- 
ishing these  sectaries  some  way  answerable  to 
their  sin  according  to  the  observation  of  the  wise 
man  (Gastius,  p.  18),  quo  qiiis  peccat  eo  puniatiir, 
they  who  drew  others  into  the  whirl-pool  of 
errour,  by  constraint  draw  one  another  into  the 
river  to  be  drowned;  and  they  who  prophaned 
baptisme  by  a  second  dipping,  rue  it  by  a  third 
immersion.  But  the  punishment  of  these  Cata- 
haptists  we  leave  to  them  that  have  the  Legislative 
power  in  their  hands,  who  though  by  present 
connivence  they  may  seem  to  give  them  line:  yet, 
no  doubt,  it  is  that  they  more  entangle  themselves 
and  more  easily  bee  caught.  For  my  part,  I  seek 
12 


178  DID   THEY    DIP  ? 

not  the  confusion  of  their  persons,  but  the  co?ifusio?i 
of  their  errours,  two  whereof  A.  R.  undertaketh 
strenuously  to  defend."     (P.  73). 

The  two  "errours"  which  A.  R.  "  strenuously 
defended"  were  immersion  and  believers'  baptism. 
Featley  declares  that  these  were  the  common 
errors  of  the  Anabaptists  in  England  and  else- 
where. Featley  in  another  place,  after  quoting 
the  law  as  given  above,  says: 

''  Let  the  punishment  bear  upon  it  the  print  of  the 
sin:  for  as  these  sectaries  drew  one  another  into 
their  errors,  so  also  into  the  gulfe;  and  as  they 
drowned  men  spiritually  by  re-baptizing,  and  so 
prophaning  the  holy  sacrament,  so  also  they  were 
drowned  corporally.  In  the  year  of  our  Lord, 
1539,  two  Anabaptists  were  burned  beyond  South- 
wark,  in  Newi?igton;  and  a  little  before  them,  five 
Dutch    Anabaptists    were   burned   in   Smithfield." 

(P.  57). 

Here  is  a  direct  admission  that  the  Anabaptists 
of  England,  as  early  as  1539,  were  dippers. 

Dr.  Featley  quotes  the  article  on  dipping,  which 
is  given  elsewhere,  from  the  Confession  of  1644 
and  then  says: 

"  This  Article  is  wholly  sowred  with  the  new 
leaven  of  Anabaptisme:  I  say  7iew  leaven,  for  it 
cannot  be  proved  that  any  of  the  antient  Anabap- 
tists maintained  any  such  position,  there  being 
three  wayes  of  baptizing,  either  by  dipping,  or 
washing,  or  sprinkling,  to  which  the  Scriptures 
alludeth  in  sundry  places:  the  Sacrament  is  right- 
ly administered  by  any  of  the  three;  and  whatso- 
ever is  here  alleged  for  dipping,  we  approve  of, 


SOME   WITNESSES.  179 

SO  farre  as  it  excludeth  not  the  other  two."     (P. 
182). 

Dr.  Whitsitt  quotes  this  passage  with  evident 
delight. 

Unhappily  for  Dr.Whitsitt,  and  "  happily  for  us," 
the  passage  is  perfectly  clear  when  we  consult 
Featley,  and  know  exactly  what  he  did  say.  It 
is  very  evident  from  this  passage  that  there  were 
two  classes  of  Anabaptists,  the  "  antient"  and  the 
"new."  Featley  divided  the  Anabaptists  into 
three  classes,  two  ancient  and  one  "  new."  He 
says: 

"The  first  broached  their  Doctrine  about  the 
year  250,  which  was  this:  That  all  those  who  had 
been  baptized  by  Novatus,  or  any  other  Hereticks, 
ought  to  be  rebaptized  by  the  orthodox  Pastors  of  the 
Church. 

"The  second  broached  theirs  about  the  year 
380,  which  was  this:  That  none  were  rightly  bap- 
tized bnt  those  that  held  with  Donatus,  a7id  conse- 
quently, that  all  others  who  had  received  Baptisme  in 
the  Catholic  Church,  by  any  other  save  those  of  his 
party,  ought  to  be  rebaptized. 

"The  third  broached  theirs  in  the  year  1525, 
which  was  this:  That  Baptisme  ought  to  be  admin- 
istered by  none,  but  such  as  can  give  a  good  accoimt 
of  their  Faith;  and  in  case  any  have  been  baptized  in 
their  Infancy,  that  they  ought  to  be  rebaptized  after 
they  come  to  years  of  discression,  before  they  are  to 
be  admitted  to  the  Church  of  Christ y     (P.  28). 

Now  it  is  clear  that  Featley  regards  the  "  new" 
as  dating  back  to  1525,  or  126  years  before  1641. 
And  in  giving  an  account  of  the  tenets  of  these 


180  DID   THEY   DIP  ? 

Anabaptists  since  the  Reformation  he  says  the 
first  tenet,  which  is  ^'peculiar  to  their  sect!'  is  "  that 
none  are  rightly  baptized  but  those  who  are 
dipped."     (P.  36). 


OTHER  WITNESSES.  181 

CHAPTER    X. 

OTHER     WITNESSES. 

In  1644  an   anonymous   author  wrote   a   tract 

called   the   Loyall  Convert.      Of  this   tract   Dr. 

Whitsitt  says: 

The  first  of  these  belongs  to  the  year  1644  and  is 
entitled  "The  New  Distemper,'  written  by  the  author  of 
the  "  Loyal  Convert."  Dr.  Dexter,  who  appears  to  be  the 
only  person  that  has  examined  this  pamphlet,  reports  that 
"  the  whole  book  takes  its  name  as  an  attack  upon  the 
'  prophanations '  of  these  dippers."  ("True  Story,"  page 
50,  with  note).  Dipping  being  for  the  author  a  "  new  dis- 
temper," it  is  manifest  that  he  did  not  take  it  for  granted, 
but  was  perfectly  aware  of  the  change  from  pouring  or 
sprinkling  to  immersion,  which  took  place  in  the  year  1641. 
(Pp.  134,  135). 

I  did  not  have  this  tract  in  hand,  so  I  wrote  to 
the  British  Museum  in  regard  to  it.  The  reply 
was:  ''There  is  nothing  in  this  tract,  either  on 
dipping  or  infant  baptism  or  rebaptism.  It  is 
simply  on  the  subject  of  church  government  and 
reforming  the  Liturgie." 

I.  Knutton  wrote  a  book,  1644,  against  the  Bap- 
tists called  Seven  Qvestions  abovt  the  Controver- 
sie  betweene  the  Chvrch  of  England  and  the 
Separatists  and  Anabaptists.  Dr.  Whitsitt  thus 
refers  to  him: 

"  In  that  place  (p.  23)  Mr.  Knutton  had  said, 
'this  opinion  [of  rebaptizing  by  dipping]  being 
but  new  and  upstart,  there  is  good  reason  they 
should  disclaim  it  and  be  humbled  for  it.'  (Dexter, 
True  Story,  p.  50).  No  finer  opportunity  was  ever 
presented  to  deny  a  charge  with  indignation  if  it 
had  been  untrue."    (P.  123). 


182  DID   THEY    DIP  ? 

Knutton  said  no  such  thing.  Here  are  his  words 
in  answer  to  query  5.:  "Whether  it  is  lawful  to 
be  baptized  or  no?  When  they  heard  this  they 
were  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  and 
when  Paul  laid  his  hands  upon  them  the  Holy 
Ghost  came  on  them  and  they  spake  with  tongues 
and  prophesied.  So  that  there  is  no  ground  for 
rebaptization.  Wherefore  Separatist  does  very  ill 
opposing  our  baptizing  of  infants,  as  proved  be- 
fore Lydia  with  all  her  household  were  baptized; 
likewise  we  find  no  negative  precept  against  pae- 
dobaptism.  Then  such  as  oppose  it  do  ill;  for 
they  follow  those  pestilent  heretics  called  Ana- 
baptists in  Germany,  who  sprang  up  there  (when 
the  light  of  the  gospel  began  to  shine)  not  very 
long  since,  being  but  new  and  upstart,  there  is 
good  reason  they  should  disclaim  it  and  be  hum- 
bled for  it." 

There  is  not  a  word  in  regard  to  dipping  in  this 
quotation.  And  the  words  "new  and  upstart" 
have  reference  to  **  Luther's  time,"  and  not  to 
1641. 

Ephraim  Pagett,  1645,  is  Dr.  Whitsitt's  next 
witness.  He  declares  there  were  fourteen  kinds 
of  Anabaptists,  and  following  his  method  of 
enumeration  he  could  have  numbered  a  thousand 
kinds  just  as  well.  John  Stoughton  in  his 
Ecclesiastical  History  of  England,  From  the 
opening  of  the  Long  Parliament  to  the  death  of 
Oliver  Cromwell,  says  of  Pagett: 

"  Certain  parties  under  the  Commonwealth  had 
the  habit,  and  the  fashion  still  exists,  of  exagera- 
ting    the    number    of    religious    denominations. 


OTHER   WITNESSES.  183 

Ephraim  Pagitt  in  his  '  Heresiography,'  published 
in  1654,  gives  a  list  of  between  forty  and  fifty 
sects,  the  historical  worth  of  which  enumeration 
we  may  estimate,  when  we  observe  that  he  dis- 
tinguishes between  Anabaptists  and  plunged 
Anabaptists,  between  Separatists  and  Semi- 
Separatists,  between  Brownists  and  Barrowists 
and  then  proceeds  to  specify  three  orders  of 
Familists."     (P.  365). 

It  is  very  certain  that  Stoughton  has  no  very 
high  regard  for  the  authority  of  "  Old  Ephraim," 
as  Pagett  was  contemptuously  called. 

Masson's  description  of  **  Old  Father  Ephraim  " 
is  rich.     He  says: 

"A  well-known  personage  in  London,  of  hum- 
bler pretensions  than  Featley  was  a  certain 
Ephraim  Pagett  (or  Pagit),  commonly  called 
'  Old  Father  Ephraim,'  who  had  been  parson  of 
the  church  of  St.  Edmund,  in  Lombard  Street, 
since  1601,  and  might  therefore  have  seen  and 
been  seen  by  Shakespeare.  Besides  other  trifles, 
he  had  published  in  1635  a  book  called  '  Christian- 
ographia,'  or  a  descriptive  enumeration  of  the 
various  sorts  of  Christians  in  the  world  out  of  the 
pale  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church.  Perhaps 
because  he  had  thus  acquired  a  fondness  for  the 
statistics  of  religious  denominations,  it  occurred 
to  him  to  write,  by  way  of  sequel,  a  *  Heresiog- 
raphy; or  a  Description  of  the  Heretics  and  Sectaries 
of  these  later  times.*  Jt  was  published  In  1645, 
soon  after  Featley's  book,  from  which  it  borrows 
hints  and  phrases.  There  is  an  Epistle  Dedica- 
tory to  the  Lord  Mayor  and  aldermen  of  the  city 


184  DID   THEY    DIP  ? 

of  London  very  similar  in  its  syntax  and  punc- 
tuation, and  containing  this  touching  appeal:  *  I 
have  lived  among  you  almost  a  jubilee,  and  seen 
your  great  care  and  provision  to  keep  the  city 
free  from  infection,  in  the  shutting  up  of  the  sick 
and  in  carrying  them  to  your  pest  houses,  in 
setting  warders  to  keep  the  whole  from  the  sick, 
in  making  of  fires  and  in  perfuming  the  streets, 
in  resorting  to  your  churches,  in  pouring  out  your 
prayers  to  Almighty  God,  with  fasting  and  alms, 
to  be  propitious  to  you.  The  plague  of  heresy  is 
greater,  and  you  are  now  in  more  danger  than 
when  you  buried  five  thousand  a  week.'  Then 
after  an  epistle  to  the  reader,  signed  '  Old  Ephraim 
Pagit,'  there  follows  the  body  of  the  treatise  in 
about  i6o  pages.  The  Anabaptists  are  taken  first 
and  occupy  55  pages;  but  a  great  many  other 
sects  are  subsequently  described,  some  in  a  few 
pages,  some  in  a  single  paragraph.  There  is  an 
engraved  title  page  to  the  volume,  containing 
small  caricatures  of  six  of  the  chief  sort  of  sec- 
taries, Anabaptism  being  represented  by  one 
plump,  naked  fellow  dipping  another,  much 
plumper,  who  is  reluctantly  stooping  down  on  all- 
fours.  The  book,  like  Featley's,  seems  to  have 
sold  rapidly.  In  the  third  edition,  published  in 
1646,  there  is  a  postscript  in  which  the  poor  old 
man  tells  us  that  it  had  cost  him  much  trouble. 
The  Sectaries  among  his  own  parishoners  had 
quarreled  with  him  on  account  of  it,  and  refused 
to  pay  him  his  tithes;  nay,  as  he  walked  in  the 
streets  he  was  hooted  at  and  reviled,  and  some- 
body  had   actually   affirmed    '  Doctor    Featley's 


OTHER  WITNESSES.  185 

devil  to  be  transmitted  into  Old  Ephraim  Paget ' 
This  seems  to  have  cut  him  to  the  quick,  though 
he  avows  his  sense  of  inferiority  in  learning  to 
the  great  Doctor.  In  short,  we  can  see  Father 
Ephraim  as  a  good  old  silly  body,  of  whom  people 
make  fun."  (Life  of  John  Milton,  Vol.  III.,  p.  139). 

This  picture  is  not  overdrawn.  My  edition, 
1647,  i^  the  Postscript,  tells  plainly  that  the 
*'  Sectaries,"  even  of  his  own  congregation,  would 
not  pay  tithes  because,  they  said,  he  had  slan- 
dered them.  Here  is  a  book  confessedly  repudi- 
ated by  the  Anabaptists,  and  yet  this  very  book 
is  one  of  Dr.  Whitsitt's  principal  testimonies. 
Surely  we  are  not  to  believe  the  enemies  of  the 
Anabaptists  when  they  directly  say  that  they  are 
slandered.  Certainly  we  would  not  expect  this 
from  a  Baptist! 

Dr.  Whitsitt  makes  this  quotation  under  Pagett: 

Yea  at  this  day  they  have  a  new  crochet  come  into  their 
heads,  that  all  that  have  not  been  plunged  nor  dipt  under 
water,  are  not  truly  baptized,  and  these  also  they  rebaptize: 
And  this  their  error  ariseth  from  ignorance  of  the  Greek 
word  Baptize,  which  signifieth  no  more  then  washing  or 
ablution,  as  Hesychus,  Stephanus,  Scapulae,  Budeus,  great 
masters  of  the  Greek  tongue,  make  good  by  many  instances 
and  allegations  out  of  many  authors.     (P.  30). 

But  this  quotation,  as  it  stands,  out  of  its  con- 
nection, does  not  properly  reflect  the  mind 
of  Pagett.  He  had  been  discussing  fourteen 
kinds  of  Anabaptists,  and  declared  they  were 
constantly  changing  their  minds.  He  now  comes 
to  the  Anabaptists  who  originated  in  the  times  of 
Luther,  and  these  Anabaptists  had  taken  up  this 
"  new  crotchet."  He  then  proceeded  to  argue 
that  sprinkling  was  permitted  in  the  Scriptures 


186  DID   THEY    DIP  ? 

and  sometimes  it  had  been  permitted  in  practice. 
But  he  declares  that  both  dipping  and  sprinkling 
were  allowed  in  his  church.     His  words  are: 

"And  both  are  allowed  by  our  church;  and 
sprinkling  hath  been  rather  used  among  us,  by 
reason  of  the  coldness  of  our  climate,  and  the  ten- 
derness of  our  infants."     (P.  31). 

He  emphatically  declares  that  dipping  was  then 
in  practice,  and  that  it  was  not  a  new  thing.  The 
trouble  with  the  Anabaptists  is  that  they  would 
not  recognize  sprinkling.  That  was  the  conten- 
tion of  Pagett.  He  mentions  no  date  and  says 
nothing  about  1641.  He  contends  that  "true 
baptism  to  be  as  well  by  sprinkling  as  by  dip- 
ping." (P.  31).  But  the  Anabaptists  did  not 
think  so,  and  so  Pagett  proceeds  to  say: 

"  Of  their  manner  of  rebaptizing,  and  other 
rites.  They  flock  in  great  multitudes  to  their 
jfordans,  and  both  Sexes  enter  into  the  River  and 
are  dipt  after  their  manner  with  a  kind  of  spell, 
containing  the  heads  of  their  erroneous  Tenets, 
and  their  ingaging  themselves  schismaticall  Cov- 
enants and  combination  of  separation.  In  the 
Thames  and  Rivers,  the  Baptizer  and  the  party 
baptized  goe  both  into  the  Rivers,  and  the  parties 
to  be  baptized  are  dipt  or  plunged  under  water." 
(Pp.  32,  33). 

The  careful  reader  will  at  once  recognize  these 
as  the  words  of  Dr.  Featley.  Such  was  Ephraim 
Pagett. 

Dr.  Whitsitt  introduces  as  a  witness  Robert 
Baillie,  1646,  a  violently  prejudiced  Scotchman. 
He  had  some  opportunities  for  observation,  and 


OTHER   WITNESSES.  187 

had  he  been  less  prejudiced  and  more  honest  his 
testimony  would  have  some  weight.  He  says  in 
the  margin:  "The  pressing  of  dipping  and  the 
exploding  of  sprinkling  is  but  an  yesterday  con- 
ceit of  the  English  Anabaptists." 

And  his  statement  in  the  body  of  the  book  is: 
"  Among  the  new  inventions  of  the  late  Ana- 
baptists, there  is  none  which  with  greater  animos- 
ity they  set  on  foot,  then  the  necessity  of  dipping 
over  head  and  ears,  then  the  nullity  of  affusion 
and  sprinkling  in  the  administration  of  baptisme. 
Among  the  old  Anabaptists,  or  those  over  the  sea 
to  this  day  so  farre  as  I  can  learn,  by  their  writs 
or  any  relation  that  yet  has  come  to  my  ears,  the 
question  of  dipping  and  sprinkling  came  never 
upon  the  table.  As  I  take  it,  they  dip  none,  but 
all  whom  they  baptize  they  sprinkle  in  the  same 
manner  as  is  our  custome.  The  question  about 
the  necessity  of  dipping  seems  to  be  taken  up  only 
the  other  year  by  the  Anabaptists  in  England,  as 
a  point  which  alone  they  conceive  is  able  to  carry 
their  desire  of  exterminating  infant  baptisme;  for 
they  know  that  parents  upon  no  consideration  will 
be  content  to  hazard  the  life  of  their  tender  in- 
fants by  plunging  them  over  head  and  ears  in  a 
cold  river.  Let  us,  therefore,  consider  if  this 
sparkle  of  new  light  have  any  derivation  from  the 
lamp  of  the  Sanctuary,  or  the  Sun  of  righteous- 
nesse,  if  it  be  according  to  Scripturall  truth  or  any 
good  reason."  ( Anabaptism,  the  True  Fountaine 
of  Independency,  &c.,  p.  163.     London,  1646). 

Upon  these  words    Dr.  Whitsitt  puts    forward 
this  argument: 


188  DID   THEY    DIP  ? 

Baillie  in  the  above  passage  expressly  declares  that  dip- 
ping was  **  a  new  mveiition  of  the  late  Anabaptists,''  "  an 
yesterday  conceit  of  the  English  Anabaptists,''  ''taken  up 
onely  the  other  year,"  "  a  sparkle  of  new  light."  He  does 
not  indicate  the  precise  year  in  which  it  was  introduced, 
but  these  expressions  agree  to  a  nicety  with  the  position 
that  this  event  took  place  only  about  five  years  before  he 
published  his  book.  Every  word  of  his  testimony  confirms 
the  deliverance  of  the  Jessey  Church  Records  to  the  effect 
that  prior  to  the  year  1640  "none  had  so  practiced  in  Eng- 
land to  professed  believers,"  while  in  the  year  1641  the 
change  from  pouring  and  sprinkling  to  immersion  was  duly 
inaugurated. 

But  Baillie's  testimony  and  Dr.  Whitsitt's 
claims  are  open  to  several  very  serious  draw- 
backs, viz.: 

1.  Baillie  nowhere  says  the  Baptists  began 
dipping  in  1641.  It  might  have  been  an  hundred 
years  before  this,  for  the  word  "  new,"  as  we  have 
seen,  is  a  very  flexible  one  on  the  pen  of  this 
class  of  controversialists. 

2.  Baillie  is  very  guarded  in  his  language.  He 
does  not  speak  positively,  for  he  only  says  that 
"  seems  to  be  taken  up,"  **  so  far  as  I  can  learn," 
■"  that  has  come  to  my  ears,"  "  as  I  take  it,"  etc. 
He  does  not  say  that  dipping  is  a  new  thing,  but 
the  pressing  of  dipping  and  the  exploding  of 
sprinkling  is  a  yesterday  conceit.  Yet  it  is  upon 
these  evasive  statements  that  Dr.  Whitsitt  founds 
one  of  his  principal  arguments. 

3.  Baillie  distinctly  holds  and  maintains  with 
the  same  process  of  guarded  words  that  infant 
sprinkling  is  taught  in  the  Word  of  God.  Indeed* 
this  very  passage  says  that  dipping  is  not  recent 
"  but  a  sparkle  of  new  light,"  because  it  is  not 
Scriptural.     Baillie  says: 

"  Consider  farther,  that  we  doe  not  oppose  the 


OTHER  WITNESSES.  18^ 

lawfulnesse  of  dipping  in  some  cases,  but  the  ne- 
cessity of  it  in  all  cases:  Neither  do  they  impugn 
the  expediency  of  sprinkling  in  some  cases,  but  the 
lawfulnesse  of  it  in  any  case.  So  both  their  doc- 
trine and  practice  makes  the  state  of  the  question 
to  be  this;  Whether  in  Baptisme  it  be  necessary 
to  put  the  whole  baptized  person  over  head  and 
ears  in  the  water  or  if  it  be  lawfuU  and  sufficient,  at 
least  in  some  cases,  to  poure  or  sprinkle  the 
water  upon  the  head  of  the  person  baptized?  For 
the  lawfulnesse  of  the  sprinkling  and  against  the 
necessity  of  dipping.  I  reason  thus.  First,  that 
action  which  the  Spirit  of  God  in  divers  Script- 
ures expresses  formally  by  the  name  of  baptisme 
is  lawfull  and  expedient  to  be  used  in  baptism. 
But  sprinkling  and  pouring  out  of  water  upon  thq^ 
party  baptized  without  any  dipping  is  by  the 
Spirit  of  God  in  divers  Scriptures  formally  ex- 
pressed by  the  name  of  baptisme."     (P.  164). 

4.  Baillie  on  this  very  point  of  dipping  among 
the  Anabaptists  contradicts  himself.  Baillie  here 
says  that  it  is  "  a  yesterday  conceit,"  and  that 
it  is  the  "  new  invention  of  the  late  Anabaptists." 
But  elsewhere  in  this  book  he  declares  that  the 
Anabaptists  practiced  dipping.  In  Chapter  I.  he 
says: 

*'  Who  are  pleased  to  read  the  late  little  accu- 
sate  and  learned  treatise  of  Clopenburgh  may  per- 
ceive that  the  Men?ionist  dippers  do  oppose  the 
truth  of  Christ's  human  nature." 

Here  is  a  direct  refutation,  from  Dr.  Whitsitt's 
principal  witness,  of  the  position  that  he  has  taken 
that  Mennonites  practiced  sprinkling. 


190  DID   THEY   DIP  ? 

In  Chapter  II.  Baillie  says  : 

"  For  the  stricter  ingagement  of  the  Saints  and 
godly  party  their  adherents,  and  for  the  clearer 
distinction  of  them  from  the  prophane  multitude 
of  all  other  congregations  they  thought  meet  to 
put  upon  them  the  mark  and  character  of  a  new 
Baptisme,  making  them  renounce  their  old  as 
null,  because  received  in  their  infancy,  and  in  a 
false  church.  At  the  beginning  this  rebaptization 
was  but  a  secondary  and  less  principall  doctrine 
.among  them,  for  Muncer  himself  was  never  re- 
b)aptized,  neither  in  his  own  person  did  he  re-bap- 
tize any,  yet,  thereafter  it  became  a  more  essen- 
tial note  of  a  member  of  their  church,  and  the 
crying  down  of  infants  baptism  came  to  be  a  most 
principall  and  distinctive  doctrine  of  all  in  their 
way.  Unto  their  new  gathered  churches  of  re- 
baptized  and  dipped  saints  they  did  ascribe  very 
ample  privileges,"  etc.     (P.  32). 

In  Chapter  IV.  Baillie  says  of  the  Anabaptists: 

"  Sixthly,  they  esteem  sprinkling  no  baptism 
at  all ;  they  will  have  the  whole  body  to  be  plunged 
over  head  and  ears  in  the  water;  this  circumstance 
of  plunging  they  account  so  necessary  and  essen- 
tial to  baptism,  that  the  change  thereof  into 
sprinkling  makes  the  baptism  to  be  null."  (P.  91). 

And  in  Chapter  V.  he  says: 

"Although  many  of  the  Tenets  mentioned  in 
the  former  chapter  may  be  dissembled  and  denied 
by  divers  of  this  sect,  yet  all  of  them  will  acknowl- 
edge as  their  own,  whatever  almost  is  practiced 
either  by  the  Independents  or  Brownists,  and 
besides,  two  Tenets  more,  Antipedobaptism  and 


OTHER   WITNESSES.  191 

Dipping.  All  who  carry  the  name  of  Anabap- 
tisme,  though,  through  ignorance,  they  know  not; 
or  through  better  instruction  they  dissent  from 
many  positions  of  their  brethren,  yet  will  avowedly, 
and  oft  with  passion,  professe  their  mind  against 
the  sprinkling  of  infants,  pedorantisme,  to  all 
of  them  I  ever  heard  of  is  an  abomination." 
(Page  137). 

Here  in  the  same  book,  by  the  same  author, 
are  found  a  passage  which  declared  the  Anabap- 
tists practiced  sprinkling  and  four  which  say  they 
practiced  dipping.  I  am  not  responsible  for  this 
contradiction.     Yet  this  is  Dr.  Whitsitt's  witness, 

5.  We  can  prove  by  the  Baptist  Confession 
of  Faith  of  1644  that  Baillie  was  guilty  of  slan- 
der.    That  Confession  declared: 

"  The  word  baptizo  signifies  to  dip  or  plunge 
(yet  so  as  convenient  garments  be  both  upon 
the  Administrator  and  subject,  with  all  modesty)." 

This  same  declaration  was  made  by  other  Bap- 
tists. Mr.  Richardson,  a  very  able  Baptist,  whom 
Baillie  quotes  in  his  book,  is  pleased  to  say 
of  nude  baptism,  as  charged  by  Dr.  Featley: 

**  But  saith  the  Doctor,  they  goe  men  and 
women  together  stark  naked  into  their  Jordans 
(pp.  36  and  203).  Wee  answer,  wee  abhor  it,  and 
deny  that  ever  any  of  us  did  so,  and  challenge 
him  to  prove  it,  against  us,  if  he  can;  and  if  he 
cannot,  it  is  fit,  he  should  be  known  for  a  slan- 
derer, if  he  deserve  no  punishment  for  it." 
(Some  Brief  Considerations,  p.  11.  London, 
Feby.  25,  1645). 

In  the  face  of  these  denials  Baillie  affirms: 


192  DID   THEY   DIP  ? 

"  As  for  chastity,  must  it  not  be  a  great  scan- 
dall,  in  the  face  of  all  the  Congregation  where 
alone,  Sacraments  can  be  duly  celebrated,  for  men 
and  women  to  stand  up  naked,  as  they  were  born; 
and  naked  men  to  go  into  the  water  with  naked 
women,  holding  them  in  their  arms  till  they  have 
plunged  them  into  the  water?  "     (Ch.  VII). 

Here  Baillie  manifestly  bore  false  witness 
against  the  Anabaptists.  If  we  do  not  believe 
Baillie  in  this  matter,  why  should  we  in  the 
other? 

6.  Baillie  attacked  the  motives  of  the  Anabap- 
tists, and  called  them  liars.  In  the  margin  of  the 
chapter  from  which  Dr.  Whitsitt  takes  his  quota- 
tion are  these  words:  "The  lying  spirit  of  Ana- 
baptisme."  (Page  163).  If  you  will  notice  the 
extract  which  Dr.  Whitsitt  gives,  you  will  see 
that  Baillie  attacks  the  motives  of  the  Anabaptists. 
He  says: 

"The  question  about  the  necessity  of  dipping 
seems  to  be  taken  up  only  the  other  year  by  the 
Anabaptists  in  England,  as  a  point  which  alone, 
as  they  conceive,  is  able  to  carry  their  desire 
of  exterminating  infant  baptism;  for  they  know 
that  parents,  upon  no  consideration,  will  be  con- 
tent to  hazard  the  life  of  their  tender  infants  by 
plunging  them  over  head  and  ears  in  a  cold  river." 

How  did  Baillie  know  that  the  Anabaptists 
were  not  honest  in  the  belief  that  they  were 
following  the  Scriptures,  and  that  their  only  motive 
in  dipping  was  to  "  exterminate  infant  baptism?" 

Baillie  goes  further,  and  charges  the  Baptists 
with  hypocrisy,  and  that  they  did  not  believe  the 


OTHER   WITNESSES.  193 

Confession  of  1644,  and  that  it  was  only  put  forth 
to  mislead.     His  words  are: 

"Their  ways  as  yet  are  not  well  known;  but 
a  little  time  it  seems  will  discover  them,  for  their 
singular  zeal  to  propagate  their  way  will  not  per- 
mit them  long  to  lurk ;  only  the  Confession  of  faith, 
which  the  other  year  seven  of  their  Congregations 
did  put  forth,  and  late  again  in  a  second  corrected 
Edition,  have  set  out  with  a  bold  preface  to  both 
the  Houses  of  Pari.;  may  no  more  be  taken  for 
the  measure  of  this  faith,  then  that  Confession, 
which  the  Elder  brethren  in  Holland  did  not  long 
ago  in  the  name  of  all  their  company." 

Surely  no  one  will  endorse  this  prejudiced  on- 
slaught and  slander  of  Baillie's;  and  yet  this  is 
the  man  whom  we  are  asked  to  follow. 

7.  Baillie  was  the  bitter  enemy  of  the  Anabap- 
tists and  desired  their  destruction.  The  passages 
which  I  have  taken  from  his  writings  to  this  effect 
are  so  numerous  that  I  cannot  give  them  all.  A 
few  selections  must  suffice.     He  says: 

"  We  have  ended  our  directorie  for  baptism. 
Thomas  Goodwin  one  day  was  exceedinglie  con- 
founded. He  has  undertaken  a  publicke  lecture 
against  the  Anabaptists ;  it  was  said,  under  pretence 
of  refuting  them,  he  betrayed  our  cause  to  them; 
that  if  the  Corinthians,  our  chief  ground  for  the 
baptisme  of  infants,  '  Your  children  are  holy,'  he 
expounded  of  reall  holiness,  and  preached  down 
our  ordinarie  and  necessare  distinction  of  reall 
and  foederall  holiness.  Being  passed  hereupon 
he  could  no  wayes  cleare  himselfe,  and  no  man 
took  his  part.     God  permits  these  gracious  men 

13 


194  DID    THEY    DIP  ? 

to  be  many  wayes  unhappie  instruments;  as  yet 
their  pride  continues;  but  we  are  hopeful!  the 
Parliament  will  not  own  their  way  so  much  as  to 
tolerate  it,  if  once  they  found  themselves  masters. 
For  the  time  they  are  loath  to  cast  them  off,  and 
to  put  their  partie,  lest  they  desert  them."  (The 
Letters  and  Journals  of  Robert  Baillie,  1637-1662, 
Vol.  II.,  p.  218). 

"  Our  next  worke,  to  give  our  advyce  what  to 
doe  for  the  suppressing  of  the  Anabaptists,  Anti- 
nomians,  and  other  sectaries.  This  will  be  a  hard 
work;  yet  so  much  as  concerns  us  will  be  quicklie 
dispatched,  I  hope  in  one  session."     (P.  224). 

"  We  spent  a  number  of  sessions  on  some  prop- 
ositions of  advyce  to  the  Parliament,  for  sup- 
pressing Antinomians,  Anabaptists,  and  these  who 
preaches  a  libertie  for  all  religions.  Even  in 
these  our  good  Independents  found  in  great  dif- 
ficultie;  and,  when  we  had  carried  our  advyces 
against  their  minds,  they  offered  to  give  in  con- 
trare  reasons  to  the  Parliament."     (P.  228). 

"  Many  of  them  preach  and  some  print,  a  liber- 
tie of  conscience,  at  least  the  great  equitie  of  a 
toleration  for  all  religions;  that  every  man  should 
be  permitted,  without  any  feare  so  much  as  of 
discountenance  from  the  magistrate,  to  professe 
publicklie  his  conscience,  were  he  ever  so  errone- 
ous, and  also  live  according  thereunto,  if  he  trou- 
ble not  the  public  peace  by  any  seditious  or 
wicked  practice."     (P.  254). 

Professor  Vedder,  after  giving  a  number  of 
quotations  to  this  effect  from  Baillie,  remarks: 

'•  But  enough,  and  more  than  enough,  of  quota- 


OTHER   WITNESSES.  195 

tions  like  these.  Surely,  no  scholar  who  has  an 
atom  of  reputation  to  lose  will  venture  to  deny, 
in  the  face  of  the  proofs  that  have  been  produced, 
that  the  Scotch  Presbyterians,  at  least,  advocated 
persecuting  principles  of  the  plainest  kind. 
Were  it  worth  the  while  equally  satisfactory 
proofs  might  be  produced  that  these  principles 
were  carried  out  into  appropriate  action."  (Bap- 
tist Quarterly  Review,  January-July,  1884). 

A  man  who  would  not  tolerate  free  speech  and 
liberty  of  conscience  among  the  Anabaptists,  and 
worked  for  severe  legislative  enactments  against 
them,  could  not  be  expected  to  be  impartial  in 
his  statements  about  them.  Such  a  man  was 
Robert  Baillie. 

8.  Baillie  was  a  Scotchman,  and  he  thought  that 
Anabaptism  would  be  contrary  to  the  peace  of 
Scotland,  and  therefore  he  did  all  in  his  power  to 
cast  reproach  upon  them.  Hanbury,  one  of  the 
foremost  writers  on  Congregational  matters,  after 
referring  to  this  book  on  "  Anabaptism,"  feels 
called  upon  to  apologize  for  it.     His  words  are: 

"  The  object  of  the  author  being  to  deal  par- 
ticularly with  the  Baptists,  so  called,  we  feel  it 
difficult,  or  invidious  rather,  to  set  out  his  positions 
in  any  way  which  shall  not  involve  the  present 
representatives  of  that  denomination  in  some  of 
the  odium  which  he  shows  attaches  to  it.  That 
the  descendants  have  rolled  away  the  reproach 
thus  laid  on  their  forefathers,  is  the  shortest  and 
most  efficient  answer  to  Baillie's  representation, 
where  he  writes,  '  The  errors  of  the  Anabaptists, 
and   their   divisions   among   themselves,   are    so 


196  DID   THEY   DIP  ? 

many  that  to  set  them  down  distinctly  and  in 
good  order,  is  a  task  which  I  dare  not  undertake; 
much  less  can  I  give  assurance  what  is  common  to 
them  all,  and  what  proper  to  their  several  sects.' 
(P.  29).  It  will  help  to  expose  the  political 
ground  of  his  hostility  by  his  nationality,  thus: 
'  This  immoderate  love  of  licentiousness  *  *  * 
puts  them  upon  a  high  degree  of  hatred  and 
indignation  against  the  Solemn  League  and 
Covenant,  against  the  Scottish  nation  whence  it 
came;  as  two  great  impediments  to  their  quiet 
enjoying  of  that  self-destroying  and  God-provok- 
ing liberty  which,  so  passionately,  they  lust  after. 
Though  for  fear  and  other  base  respects,  many  of 
them  have  swallowed  down  the  Covenant  in  such 
equivocal  senses  as  are  evidently  contrary  both  to 
the  express  words  and  known  intentions  of  the 
States  which  enjoin  it;  yet  since  the  time  their 
strength  and  hopes  are  increased,  these  of  them 
who  pretend  to  ingenuity  and  courage  do  not 
only  with  bitterness  reject  it,  but  it  is  now  become 
the  object  of  their  public  invectives  as  the  most 
unhappy  plague  that  did  ever  come  to  England. 
(P.  57).'"  (Historical  Memorials,  Vol.  III.,  p.  223). 

Thus  Hanbury  continues  at  some  length. 
When  we  consider  this  mixture  of  political  hatred 
and  religious  intolerance  I  do  not  think  from  the 
writings  of  Robert  Baillie  that  we  would  be  justi- 
fied in  reaching  the  conclusion  that  dipping  was 
an  "  invention  "  among  the  Baptists  about  1641. 

Another  authority  quoted  by  Dr.  Whitsitt 
is  J.  Saltmarsh.  He  was  a  Quaker,  and  opposed 
to  all  baptism.     Dr.  Whitsitt  says: 


OTHER  WITNESSES. 


197 


Dr.     Whitsitt's 
sion,  1896: 


ver- 


Dr.  Dexter  also  brings  forward  the  performance  of  J.  Salt- 
marsh,  entitled, "  The  Smoke  in  the  Temple,  Wherein  is  a  De- 
sign for  Peace  and  Reconciliation  of  Believers  of  the  several 
Opinions  of  these  Times  about  Ordinances,  to  a  Forbearance 
of  each  other  in  Love,  and  Meeknesse,  and  Humility,"  etc. 
London,  1645.  Mr.  Saltmarsh  here  pp.  15,  16,  speaks 
of  "  the  dipping  them  in  the  water  ....  as  the 
new  baptism."  (True  Story,  p.  50),  showing  that  he  was 
entirely  aware  of  the  recent  change,  from  pouring  and 
sprinkling,  to  immersion.    (Page  135). 

I  am  amazed  at  this  quotation.  I  give  parallel 
columns: 

John  Saltmarsh,  1646: 

6.  That  the  form  by 
which  they  baptize,  viz.: 
I  baptize  thee  in  the  name 
of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Ghost,  is  a  for7?i  of  man's 
devising  —  a  tradition  -of 
man,  a  new  conseguefice 
drawn  from  suppositio7i  and 
probability  —  and  not  a  form 
left  by  Christ,  to  say  over 
them  at  the  dipping  them 
in  the  water :  If  Christ  had 
said,  when  you  baptize  them, 
say  this  over  them,  I  baptize 
thee  in  the  name  of  the  Fath- 
er, Son,  and  Holy  Ghost ^ 
and  unless  Jesus  Christ  had 
left  this  form  thus  made  up 
to  their  hands,  they  practice 
a  thing  made  up  by  them- 
selves, and  drawn  or  forced 
out  of  Jesus  Christ's  words, 
in  Matt.  28, 18.    (Pp.  15, 16). 

One-half  of  the  sentence  used  by  Dr.  Whitsitt 
from  Saltmarsh  I  was  able  to  find;  but  I  read  dil- 
igently for  the  phrase,  "  as  the  new  baptism."  If 
it  is  in  Saltmarsh's  book,  it  is  certainly  nowhere 
near  the  other  words,  "the  dipping  them  in  the 
water."     This  is  marvelous  in  my  eyes.  • 

I  have  been  somewhat  more  successful  with  the 


"  the  dipping  them  in  the 

water, as  the  new 

baptism." 


198 


DID   THEY   DIP  ? 


Dr.    Whitsitt's    ver- 
sion, 1896: 

"  Now  within  these   late 
yeares      


next  authority  of  Dr.  Whitsitt,  viz.:  J.  Parnell, 
1655.  I  parallel  Dr.  Whitsitt's  quotation  with  the 
author's  words: 

The  words  of  J.  Par- 
nell, 1655: 

Now  within  these  late 
yeers  the  Light  of  Christ, 
beginning  to  stir  peoples 
hearts,  so  that  they  come  to 
see  themselves  in  much 
darkness  and  ignorance  of 
these  things  which  they  read 
of  in  the  scripture,  and  also 
the  corrupted  of  the  Priests 
and  Teachers,  and  what 
Reprobates  they  were  con- 
cerning the  faith,  and  that 
they  profited  not  the  people 
at  all,  but  they  had  heard 
them  so  long,  and  still  minds 
not  being  directed  to  the 
light,  which  showed  them 
this,  and  should  have  led 
them  out  of  this  condition, 
upon  which  they  should  have 
waited  for  direction  to  have 
found  the  way  of  truth,  but 
they  run  without  to  the  Let- 
ter in  their  own  wils  and 
wisdome,  and  so  would  find 
out  a  way  by  their  own  wis- 
dome and  imagination,  and 
so  went  out  to  search  the 
scripture,  but  with  a  wrong 
eye,  giving  their  own  mean- 
ings and  interpretations 
upon  the  scripture,  and  one 
cries  this  is  my  judgment, 
and  thus  they  are  confound- 
ed and  divided  into  their 
several  Judgments  and  opin- 
ions, yet  all  still  in  one  life 
and  one  nature,  but  onely 
confounded  and  divided  in 
their  Judgments  of  what  the 
Prophets  meant,  and  Christ 
meant,  and  which  the  Apos- 


OTHER  WITNESSES.  199 

ties  meant,  but  it  is  as  a 
Book  sealed,  both  to  the 
learned  and  the  unlearned, 
and  none  is  found  worthy  to 
open  the  seals,  who  is  the 
light  wherein  lies  the  minis- 
trie;  as  this  is  the  cause  why 
they  whose  mindes  are  from 
the  light,  are  so  divided  and 
scattered  in  their  judgments 
and  opinions,  and  one  sets 
up  a  forme  in  his  imagina- 
tion, and  another  sets  up  a 
forme  in  his  imagination 
and  one  runs  abroad  into 
the  world  with  his  wisdome, 
and  he  will  go  preach  up  his 
form  and  Judgment  to  be 
the  truth,  and  another  he 
will  cry  down  that  form  for 
delusion,  and  preach  up  his 
form  for  a  truth,  and  so 
many  deceivers  and  false 
spirits,  are  entered  into  the 
world,  and  one  cries,  lo  here 
is  Christ  if  you  can  believe 
and  be  baptized  you  shall 
be  saved;  so  they  that  can 
say  that  is  the  way,  and  that 

they  believe  Christ  dyed  for      they  (the    Anabaptists)   say 
them,    then    they    must  be       .      .      .      .      .     they  must  be 
dipped  in  the  water,  and  that      dipped   in    the    water,    and 
they  call   baptizing  of  them,      that    they    call     baptizing." 
and  then    they   are  of  their      (True  Story,  p.  51). 
church,  and  they  call  them- 
selves   Saints,    though  they 
are   still  in  the   old  nature. 
(Pp.16,  17). 

From  the  above  it  will  appear  that  I  have  been 
able  to  find  the  first  phrase  **  now  within  these  late 
yeers,"  and  the  last  phrase  "they  must  be  dipped 
in  the  water,  and  that  they  call  baptizing,"  but 
the  middle  phrase  "they  (the  Anabaptists)  say  " 
does  not  appear.  Did  anyone  ever  see  such 
garbling?     And  when   we  really   find  what   the 


200  DID   THEY    DIP  ? 

author  did  say  there  is  nothing  about  1641  or 
dipping  being  a  new  thing.  This  garbling  was 
done  by  Dr.  Dexter  from  whom  Dr.  Whitsitt  took 
the  quotation,  without  ever  reading  the  original. 
These  are  but  samples  of  many  other  cases  that 
could  be  cited. 


A  CHALLENGE  ACCEPTED.  201 


CHAPTER  XI. 

A   CHALLENGE    ACCEPTED. 

The  challenge  has  been  put  forth  to  name  three 
individual  believers  who  were  dipped  before  1641. 
I  accept  the  challenge  and  answer  it  in  three 
ways: 

I.  There  existed  in  England  whole  churches 
of  baptized  believers  before  1641.  I  refer  to 
another  chapter  for  the  existence  and  number  of 
Baptist  churches  in  England  before  1641.  In 
this  connection  I  mention  the  names  of  only  three 
churches.  Goadby,  who  has  written  an  able  Bap- 
tist history,  and  the  facts  of  which,  so  far  as  I 
know,  have  never  been  disputed,  says: 

"  But  the  three  churches  we  have  mentioned — 
Hill  Cliffe,  Eythorne  and  Bocking— deservedly 
rank  as  the  most  ancient  Baptist  churches  in  Eng- 
land." (Goadby's  Bye-Paths  in  Baptist  History, 
p.  28.    London,  1871). 

In  regard  to  the  Hill  Cliffe  Church,  Rev.  D.  O. 
Davies,  Rochdale,  England,  who  attended  the 
sessions  of  the  Southern  Baptist  Convention,  at 
Birmingham,  gives  an  interesting  account.  He 
says: 

"  The  oldest  Baptist  church  in  the  country  is 
Hill  Cliffe,  in  Cheshire,  but  on  the  borders  of 
Lancashire.  The  old  church  was  built  in  a  secluded 
spot,  far  removed  from  public  roads  and  enclosed 
by  a  thick  wood.  Tradition  declares  that  the 
church  is  five   hundred  years  old.     A  tombstone 


202  DID   THEY   DIP  ? 

was  recently  discovered  in  the  burial  ground  of 
the  place,  bearing  date  1357.  In  digging  the  foun- 
dation to  enlarge  the  old  chapel,  a  large  baptistery 
was  discovered  which  was  made  of  stone  and  well 
cemented.  The  baptistery  must  have  belonged 
to  a  previous  chapel.  Oliver  Cromwell  worshipped 
at  this  church,  and  one  of  his  officers  occupied 
the  pulpit.  It  is  one  of  the  pre-historic  churches, 
and  a  regular  Baptist  church."  (Shackelford's 
Compendium  of  Baptist  History,  p.  274,  Louisville, 
1892). 

Here  are  some  of  the  statements  that  I  take 
from  Goadby  in  reference  to  this  church: 

"  We  have  reliable  evidence  that  a  Separatist, 
and  probably  a  Baptist  church,  has  existed  for 
several  centuries  in  a  secluded  spot  of  Cheshire, 
on  the  borders  of  Lancashire,  about  a  mile  and  a 
half  from  Warrington.  No  spot  could  be  better 
chosen  for  concealment  than  the  site  on  which 
this  ancient  chapel  stood.  Removed  from  all 
public  roads,  enclosed  by  a  dense  wood,  affording 
ready  access  into  two  counties.  Hill  Cliffe  was 
admirably  suited  for  the  erection  of  a  '  co?ive?itic- 
ula  illicita,'  an  illegal  conventicle.  The  ancient 
chapel  built  on  this  spot  was  so  constructed  that 
the  surprised  worshippers  had  half  a  dozen  secret 
ways  of  escaping  from  it,  and  long  proved  a 
meeting  place  suited  to  the  varying  fortunes  of  a 
hated  and  hunted  people.  Owing  to  the  many 
changes  inseparable  from  the  eventful  history  of 
the  church  at  Hill  Cliffe,  the  earliest  records 
have  been  lost.  But  two  or  three  facts  point  to 
the  very  early  existence  of  the  community   itself. 


A   CHALLENGE   ACCEPTED.  203 

In  1841  the  then  old  chapel  was  enlarged  and 
modernized;  and  in  digging  for  the  foundation,  a 
large  baptistery  of  stone,  well  cemented,  was  dis- 
covered. How  long  this  had  been  covered  up, 
and  at  what  period  it  was  erected,  it  is  impossible 
to  state;  but  as  some  of  the  tombstones  in  the 
graveyard  adjoining  the  chapel  were  erected  in 
the  early  part  of  the  sixteenth  century,  there  is 
some  probability  for  the  tradition  that  the  chapel 
itself  was  built  by  the  Lollards  who  held  Baptist 
opinions.  One  of  the  dates  on  the  tombstones  is 
1357,  the  time  when  Wickliffe  was  still  a  fellow 
at  Merton  College,  Oxford;  but  the  dates  most 
numerous  begin  at  the  period  when  Europe  had 
just  been  startled  by  Luther's  valiant  onslaught 
upon  the  papacy.  *  *  *  *  Many  of  these 
tombstones,  and  especially  the  oldest,  as  we  can 
testify  from  a  personal  examination,  look  as  clear 
and  as  fresh  as  if  they  were  engraved  only  a  cen- 
tury ago.  *  *  *  *  Hill  Cliffe  is  undoubtedly 
one  of  the  oldest  Baptist  churches  in  England.  * 
*  *  *  -phe  earliest  deeds  of  the  property  have 
been  irrecoverably  lost,  but  the  extant  deeds, 
which  go  back  considerably  over  two  hundred 
years,  described  the  property  as  being  '  for  the 
Anabaptists.'"    (Goadby's  Bye-Paths,  pp.  21-23). 

These  facts  are  also  confirmed  by  Cramp. 

To  show  how  deep  seated  is  the  conviction 
among  English  Baptists  that  this  Church  reaches 
into  great  antiquity  I  give  an  extract  from  TJie 
Baptist,  London,  June  5,  1896.     The  writer  says: 

'*  One  fact,  however,  and  one  of  some  impor- 
tance, seems  to  stand  out  with  sufificient  clearness. 


204  DID  THEY   DIP  ? 

viz.:  that  so  far  as  E7igla?td  is  coiicerned  the  Church 
at  Hill  Cliffe  is  the  link — not,  of  course  that  there 
are  no  others,  for  these  there  are,  as  Mr.  Compton's 
article  shows,  but  this  is  a  material  and  tangible 
link — of  historic  continuity  between  the  Baptist 
Churches  of  the  present  and  those  of  the  Pre-Ref- 
ormation  period.  Here,  at  any  rate,  we  get  away 
from  the  miserable  and  truculent  negatives, 
'  Nonconformity'  and  '  Dissent,'  and  reach  an  al- 
titude where  our  position  is  not  weighed  and 
measured  by  its  relation  to  a  *  Church'  which, 
however  imposing  politically  and  socially,  is  one 
to  which  we  owe  no  kind  of  allegiance  whatever, 
and  with  which  we  have  nothing  to  do." 

I  will  now  turn  to  the  Church  at  Eythorne, 
Kent.  If  the  reader  will  turn  to  a  former  chapter 
he  will  find  much  in  regard  to  the  Baptists  in 
Kent.  Without  repeating  these  statements  I 
shall  relate  some  additional  facts  as  given  by 
Goad  by.     He  says: 

'*  The  Church  at  Eythorne,  Kent,  owes  its  origin 
to  some  Dutch  Baptists,  who  settled  in  this 
country  in  the  time  of  Henry  the  Eighth.  They 
were,  doubtless,  tempted  to  make  England  their 
home  by  the  brisk  trade  that  sprang  up  between 
this  country  and  Holland,  soon  after  the  marriage 
of  Henry  with  Anne  of  Cleves  (1540).  *  *  * 
In  the  Calendar  of  State  Papers  (Domestic 
Series,  1 547-1 580),  under  the  date  of  October 
28th,  1552,  we  have  this  entry:  *  Northumberland, 
to  Sir  William  Cecill.  Wishes  the  King  would 
appoint  Mr.  Knox  to  the  Bishopric  of  Rochester, 
He  would   be   a  whetstone  to  the  Archbishop  of 


A  CHALLENGE  ACCEPTED.  205 

Canterbury,  and  a  confounder  of  the  Anabaptists 
lately  sprung  up  in  Kent.'  *  *  *  One  singu- 
lar fact,  perhaps  without  a  parallel,  in  the  history 
of  this  ancient  General  Baptist  Church  at  Ey- 
thorne,  deserves  to  be  mentioned;  the  names  of 
the  pastors,  from  the  close  of  the  Sixteenth  Cen- 
tury to  the  last  quarter  of  the  Seventeenth  Cen- 
tury, were  John  Knott.  The  first  John  Knott  be- 
came the  pastor  of  Eythorne  somewhere  between 
1590  and  1600,  and  the  last  John  Knott  removed 
to  Chatham  in  1780."  (Bye-Paths  in  Baptist  His- 
tory, pp.  23-26). 

Dr.  Howard  Osgood,  the  eminent  Baptist 
scholar,  makes  this  comment: 

"  If  we  would  make  the  first  Baptist  church  to 
appear  under  Helwise,  in  1614,  then  we  must  deny 
the  historical  evidence  of  the  conventicles  of 
Baptists  in  the  previous  century.  If  we  make 
the  church  founded  in  London  in  1633  the  first 
Calvinistic  Baptist  Church  in  England,  we  assume 
that  all  the  Baptists  and  Baptist  churches  of  the 
sixteenth  century  were  Arminian  in  their  views, 
which  has  never  been  shown,  and  is  contrary  to 
all  probability.  Baptists  were  found  in  the  north 
and  west  but  principally  in  the  east  of  England. 
Under  the  dreadful  persecution  of  the  Tudors, 
the  churches  knew  little  of  each  other,  unless 
they  were  situated  near  together.  We  hear  more 
of  the  Calvinistic  church  formed  in  1633,  because 
it  was  situated  in  London  and  performed  an  im- 
portant work  in  the  following  years.  Joan 
Bucher,  who  was  a  member  of  the  Baptist  church 
in   Eythorne,  Kent,  burned  by  order  of    Henry 


^06  DID   THEY   DIP  ? 

VI.,  held  this  doctrine."  {The  Standard,  1875, 
Chicago). 

Goadby  is  equally  confident  of  the  history  of 
the  church  at  Bocking  and  Braintree,  Essex.  He 
says : 

"In  Strype's  Ecclesiastical  Memorials  we  find 
these  words,  under  date  1550:  *  Sectaries  ap- 
peared now  in  Essex  and  Kent,  sheltering  them- 
selves under  the  profession  of  the  Gospel,  of 
whom  complaint  was  made  to  the  Council.  These 
were  the  first  that  made  separation  from  the 
Church  of  England,  having  gathered  congrega- 
tions of  their  own.'  They  were  the  first,  that  is, 
of  which  Strype  had  heard.  The  congregation  in 
Essex  was  mentioned  to  be  at  Bocking;  that  at 
Kent  was  at  Faversham,  as  I  learnt  from  an  old 
register.  From  whence  I  also  collect  that  they 
held  the  opinions  of  the  Anabaptists  and  the 
Pelagians;  that  there  were  contributions  among 
them  for  the  better  maintaining  of  their  congre- 
.gations;  that  the  members  of  the  congregation 
in  Kent  went  over  with  the  congregation  in  Essex, 
to  instruct  and  join  with  them;  and  that  they  had 
their  meetings  in  Kent,  and  in  divers  places  be- 
sides Faversham.'  In  other  words,  the  Kent 
churches  at  Eythorne,  Faversham,  Sandwich, 
Canterbury,  perhaps,  and  other  places,  helped  to 
build  up,  if  they  did  not  actually  originate,  the 
church  at  Bocking.' 

"  Bocking  and  Braintree  are  two  parishes  di- 
vided by  the  main  road,  and  the  whole  is  now 
known  as  Braintree.  The  '  complaints '  by  whom- 
soever made,  against  the  Baptists  at  Bocking,  led 


A  CHALLENGE  ACCEPTED.  207 

to  their  being  watched,  and  about  sixty  persons 
were  in  the  house  when  the  sheriff  interrupted 
their  assembly.  They  confessed  to  the  Council 
that  they  had  met  to  talk  the  Scriptures,  and  that 
they  had  not  communed  at  the  parish  church  for 
two  years.  Some  were  fined  and  set  at  liberty, 
others  were  imprisoned,  and  remained  until 
Queen  Mary  came  to  the  throne,  when  they  were 
released,  only  to  betaken  into  custody,  "and  by- 
and-by  to  the  stake.     *     *     * 

"  The  Bocking-Braintree  church-book,  still  in 
existence,  carries  back  the  authentic  records  of 
the  church  for  more  than  two  hundred  years;  but 
there  is  no  question  that  the  origin  of  the  church 
itself  dates  back  to  the  days  of  Edward  the  Sixth." 
(Bye-Paths  in  Baptist  History,  pp.  26-28). 

Here  is  an  answer  that  is  sufficient,  if  we  had 
no  other.  We  present  not  three  believers  but 
three  Baptist  churches  which  had  existed  long 
before  1641. 

2.  I  mention  as  three  believers  who  were  im- 
mersed before  1641,  William  Kiffin,  Hanserd 
Knollys,  and  John  Canne. 

William  Kiffin  seceded  from  the  Independents 
in  1638.   Of  this  Goadby  says: 

**  Five  years  after  the  above  date  (1638),  a  fur- 
ther secession  from  the  original  church  strength- 
ened their  hands.  Among  the  seceders  were 
William  Kiffin  and  Thomas  Wilson.  Kiffin,  to 
whose  pen  we  are  indebted  for  the  account  of  the 
origin  of  the  first  Calvinistic  Baptist  church  in 
England,  thus  speaks  of  the  reasons  which  led 
him  to  join  Mr.  Spilsbury: — 'I  used  all  of  my  en- 


208  DID   THEY   DIP  ? 

deavours,  by  converse  with  such  as  were  able, 
also  by  diligently  searching  the  Scriptures,  with 
earnest  desires  to  God  that  I  might  be  directed 
in  a  right  way  of  worship;  and,  after  some  time, 
concluded  that  the  safest  way  was  to  follow  the 
footsteps  of  the  flock,  namely,  that  order  laid 
down  by  Christ  and  his  Apostles,  and  practiced 
by  the  primitive  Christians  in  their  time,  which 
I  found  to  be,  after  conversion  they  were  bap- 
tized, added  to  the  church,  and  continued  in  the 
Apostles'  doctrine  and  fellowship,  and  breaking 
of  bread,  and  prayers.'"  (Bye-Paths  in  Baptist 
History,  p.  351). 

This  Independent  church  to  which  Mr.  Kififin 
belonged  was  organized  in  1616.  Mr.  Henry 
Jacob  was  its  first  pastor  and  Mr.  John  Lathrop 
was  the  second.  In  1633,  during  the  pastorate  of 
Mr.  Lathrop,  there  was  a  division  on  the  subject 
of  immersion  and  a  Baptist  church  was  organized 
under  the  leadership  of  Mr.  Spilsbury.  Lathrop 
in  1634  removed  to  America  with  part  of  his 
church,  where  he  still  had  trouble  with  his  church 
on  the  subject  of  immersion.  Dean,  who  was  a 
very  able  historian  and  editor  of  a  number  of  the 
works  of  the  Massachusetts  Historical  Society, 
says:  "Controversy  respecting  the  mode  of 
baptism  had  been  agitated  in  Mr.  Lathrop's 
church  before  he  left  England,  and  a  part  had 
separated  from  him  and  established  the  first 
Baptist  (Calvinistic)  church  in  England  in  1633. 
Those  that  came  seem  not  all  to  have  been 
settled  on  this  point,  and  they  found  others  in 
Scituate  ready  to  sympathize  with  them." 


A  CHALLENGE  ACCEPTED.  209 

It  was  to  this  church  that  Kiffin  united.  Indeed 
so  greatly  was  Kiffin  in  favor  of  immersion  that 
he  soon  left  Spilsbury's  church  because  they 
occasionally  admitted  ministers  to  preach  for 
them  who  had  not  been  immersed.     Crosby  says: 

'*  He  w^as  first  of  an  Indeperidejit  congregation, 
and  called  to  the  ministry  among  them;  was  one 
of  them  who  were  concerned  in  the  conferences 
held  in  the  congregation  of  Mr.  Hejiry  Jessey ;  by 
which  Mr.  Jessey  and  the  greatest  part  of  the 
congregation  became  proselyted  to  the  opinion  of 
the  Baptists.  He  joined  himself  to  the  church  of 
Mr.  John  Spilsbury,  but  a  difference  arising  about 
permitting  persons  to  preach  amongst  them  that 
had  not  been  baptized  by  immersion,  they  parted 
by  consent."     (History  of  the  Baptists,  Vol.  III., 

p.  3-4). 

All  of  this  took  place  before  1641.  (Ivimey's 
"History  of  the  Baptists,  Vol.  II.,  p.  297).  This 
settles  the  fact  Kiffin  was  baptized  before  1641. 

I  now  refer  to  Hanserd  Knollys.  M'Clintock 
and  Strong  say:  "A  few  years  before  (1635)^ 
though  unknown  to  Williams,  a  Baptist  preacher 
of  England,  Hanserd  Knollys,  had  settled  in  New 
Hampshire  and  taken  charge  of  a  church  in  Dover; 
but  he  resigned  in  1639  and  returned  to  England." 
(Encyclopaedia  Biblical  Theology  and  Ecclesias- 
tical Literature,  Vol.  I.,  p.  654).  To  confirm  this 
statement  we  have  contemporaneous  evidence. 
Cotton  Mather  mentions  a  number  of  Baptists 
among  the  first  planters  of  New  England,  and 
that  some  ministers  of  that  persuasion  came  over. 
He  says  of  Hanserd  Knollys: 

14 


210  DID   THEY   DIP  ? 

"  Of  them  there  were  some  godly  Anabaptists; 
as  namely,  Mr.  Hanserd  Knollys  (whom  one  of 
his  adversaries  called  absurd  K?iowles),  of  Dover, 
who  afterwards  moved  back  to  London,  lately 
died  there,  a  good  man,  in  a  good  old  age." 
(Magnalia  Christi  Americana,  Vol.  I.,  p.  243. 
Hartford,  1855). 

He  wrote  an  autobiography  of  himself,  which 
was  edited  and  completed  by  William  Kiffin. 
Knollys  died  September  19,  1691,  and  from  the 
words  of  Kiffin  it  is  probable  that  he  became  a 
Baptist  as  early  as  163 1.     Kiffin's  words  are: 

"The  author  of  these  ensuing  experiences  was 
that  ancient  and  faithful  servant  of  God,  Mr. 
Hanserd  Knollys,  who  departed  this  life  in  the 
ninety-third  year  of  his  age,  having  been  employed 
in  the  works  and  service  of  Christ,  as  a  faithful 
minister,  for  above  sixty  years;  in  which  time  he 
labored  without  fainting  under  all  the  discourage- 
ment that  attended  him,  being  contented  in  all 
conditions,  though  never  so  poor  in  this  world; 
under  all  persecutions  and  sufferings,  so  that  he 
might  therein  serve  his  blessed  Lord  and  Saviour. 
I  have  myself  known  him  for  above  fifty-four  years, 
and  can  witness  to  the  truth  of  many  things  left 
by  him  under  his  own  hand."  (Life  and  Death  of 
Hanserd  Knollys,  p.  47.    London,  1812). 

The  Rev.  George  P.  Gould,  M.  A.,  a  learned 
Baptist  scholar  of  England,  is  now  editing  and 
bringing  out  a  series  of  Baptist  Manuals,  histori- 
cal and  biographical.  In  1895  he  published  one  on 
Hanserd  Knollys  by  James  Culross,  M.  A.,  D.  D., 
president  of  Bristol  Baptist  College.     After  stat- 


A  CHALLENGE  ACCEPTED.  211 

ing  that  Hanserd  Knollys  became  a  sectary,  pro- 
bably in  163 1,  he  declares: 

"  Had  Baptists  thought  anything  depended  on 
it,  they  might  have  traced  their  pedigree  back  to 
New  Testament  times,  and  claimed  apostolic  suc- 
cession. The  channel  of  succession  was  certainly 
purer,  if  humbler,  than  through  the  apostate 
church  of  Rome.  But  they  were  content  to  rest 
on  Scripture  alone,  and,  as  they  found  only  believ- 
ers' baptism  there,  they  adhered  to  that."  (P.  39, 
note). 

The  Rev.  John  Canne,  author  of  the  mar- 
ginal references  of  the  Bible  was  an  eminent  min- 
ister of  those  times.  When  he  became  a  Baptist 
is  uncertain  but  it  was  certainly  before  1640. 
He  was  found  in  Bristol  in  1640,  preach- 
ing in  •'  public  places"  and  was  declared  to 
be  a  "  baptized  man,"  or  an  immersed  man  as 
that  phrase  was  used.  I  give  a  conclusive  state- 
ment from  the  Broadmead  Records.  These  Rec- 
ords say: 

"  Anno,  1640.  And  thus  the  Lord  led  them  by 
His  Spirit  in  a  way  and  path  that  they  knew  not, 
having  called  them  out  of  darkness  into  his  marvel- 
ous light  by  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord.  So  that  in  the 
year  of  our  ever  blessed  Redeemer,  the  Lord 
Jesus  (1640),  one  thousand  six  hundred  and  forty, 
those  five  persons,  namely,  Goodman  Atkins,  of 
Stapleton,  Goodman  Cole,  a  butcher  of  Lawford's 
Gate,  Richard  Moone,  a  farrier  in  Wine  street, 
and  Mr.  Bacon,  a  young  minister,  with  Mrs.  Haz- 
zard,  at  Mrs.  Hazzard's  house,  at  the  upper  end 
of   Broad  street,  in   Bristol,  they  met   together, 


212  DID   THEY    DIP  ? 

and  came  to  a  holy  resolution  to  separate  from 
the  worship  of  the  world  and  times  they  lived  in, 
and  that  they  would  go  no  more  to  it.  And  with 
godly  purpose  of  heart  (they)  joined  themselves 
in  the  Lord,  only  thus  covenanting,  that  they 
would  in  the  strength  and  assistance  of  the  Lord 
come  forth  of  the  world,  and  worship  the  Lord 
more  purely,  persevering  therein,  to  their  end." 
(Broadmead  Records,  pp.,  17,  18). 

The  Records  continue: 

"At  this  juncture  of  time  the  providence  of 
God  brought  to  this  city  one  Mr.  Canne,  a  bap- 
tized man;  it  was  that  Mr.  Canne  that  made  notes 
and  references  upon  the  Bible.  He  was  a  man 
very  eminent  in  his  day  for  godliness,  and  for 
reformation  in  religion,  having  great  understand- 
ing in  the  way  of  the  Lord." 

Mrs.  Hazzard,  who  was  the  wife  of  the  parish 
priest,  found  him  and  fetched  him  to  her  home. 
Then  the  Records  say: 

"  He  taught  the  way  of  the  Lord  more  per- 
fectly, and  settled  them  in  church  order,  and 
showed  them  the  difference  betwixt  the  church  of 
Christ  and  anti-Christ,  and  left  with  them  a 
printed  book  treating  of  the  same,  and  divers 
printed  papers  to  that  purpose.  So  that  by  this 
instrument  Mr.  Canne,  the  Lord  did  confirm  and 
settle  them;  showing  them  how  they  should  join 
together,  and  take  in  members."  (Pp.  18,  19). 

Mr.  Canne  then  attempted  to  preach  in  a  sub- 
urb of  the  city  and  a  wealthy  woman  placed  some 
obstructions  in  his  way.     The  Records  say: 

"  The   obstruction  was  by  a  very  godly   great 


A  CHALLENGE  ACCEPTED.  213 

woman,  that  dwelt  in  that  place,  who  was  some- 
what severe  in  the  profession  of  what  she  knew, 
hearing  that  he  was  a  baptized  man,  by  them 
called  Anabaptists,  which  was  to  some  sufficient 
cause  of  prejudice,  because  the  truth  of  believers 
baptism  had  been  for  a  long  time  buried,  yea,  for 
a  long  time  by  popish  inventions,  and  their 
sprinkling  brought  in  room  thereof.  And  (this 
prejudice  existed)  by  reason  (that)  persons  in 
the  practice  of  that  truth  by  baptism  were  by  some 
rendered  very  obnoxious;  because,  about  one 
hundred  years  before,  some  beyond  the  sea,  in 
Germany,  that  held  that  truth  of  believers  bap- 
tism, did,  as  some  say,  did  some  very  singular  ac- 
tions; of  whom  we  can  have  no  true  account  what 
they  were  but  by  their  enemies;  for  none  but 
such  in  any  history  have  made  any  relation  or 
narrative  of  them."     (P.  19,20). 

"  For  good  measure  "  I  will  also  mention  Paul 
Hobson.     Ivimey  says  of  him: 

**  He  is  mentioned  among  the  rejected  minis- 
ters. Dr.  Calamy  supposes  that  he  was  chaplain 
of  Eaton  College,  and  that  he  had  a  place  of 
command  in  the  army;  but  observes,  that  if  he 
had  conformed  afterwards  it  would  have  made 
some  atonement,  as  was  the  case  in  other  in- 
stances. In  addition  to  these  circumstances,  we 
find  that  he  was  engaged  as  early  as  1639,  as  one 
of  the  chief  promoters  of  founding  a  Baptist 
church  in  London.  He  was  one  of  the  pastors 
who  signed  the  Confession  of  faith  of  the  seven 
churches  in  London  in  1644."  (History  of  the 
English  Baptists,  Vol.  L,  p.  88). 


214  DID   THEY   DIP  ? 

This  statement  of  Ivimey  that  Paul  Hobson  was 
a  preacher  is  confirmed  by  Edwards.  Edwards 
who  was  a  contemporary  says  that  he  had  been 
an  Anabaptist  preacher  "  a  long  time."  This  was 
written  in  1645,  ^^^  an  Anabaptist  in  the  mouth 
of  Edwards  was  always  a  "  dipper."  Edwards' 
words  are: 

"  There  is  one  Paid  Hobson  a  Taylor,  who  comes 
out  of  Bucki7ighamshire  and  is  now  a  Captain,  hav- 
ing been  in  the  Armies,  who  hath  been  a  Preacher 
a  great  while.  This  man  when  he  was  in  the 
Army,  where  ever  he  came  he  would  Preach  pub- 
likely  in  the  Churches,  where  he  could  get  pul- 
pits, and  privately  to  the  Souldiers;  the  subject 
matter  of  his  Sermons  was  much  against  Duties, 
and  of  Revelations,  what  God  had  revealed  to 
him;  he  was  a  means  to  corrupt  some  precious 
hopeful  young  men  who  went  out  of  London;  and 
preaching  one  time  against  Holy  Duties  (as  an 
understanding  man  who  heard  him,  related  to  me 
and  other  company),  he  spake  thus."  Then  this 
further  statement  is  volunteered:  "This  Paul 
Hobson  is  one  of  those  whose  hand  is  subscribed 
to  the  Confessiofi  of  Faith  of  the  Anabaptists,  set 
forth  last  Winter."     (Gangraena,  p.  33.    London, 

1645). 

Here  is  positive  contemporaneous  proof  that 
Paul  Hobson  was  an  immersionist  in  1639,  for  he 
was  engaged  in  forming  a  Baptist  church,  and  the 
inference  is  that  he  had  been  a  Baptist  many  years 
before  this. 

The  Reader  will  also  call  to  mind  that  in  the 
chapter  "  On  the  Baptists  before  1641  "  I  give  an 


A  CHALLENGE  ACCEPTED.  215 

account  of  a  number  of  persons  who  were  dipped 
before  1641  in  England. 

3.  The  proof  is  positive  that  noted  Baptists 
after  1641,  who  were  certainly  dippers,  positively 
state  that  Baptist  Churches,  as  they  were  then 
organized,  had  long  existed  in  England. 

The  first  witness  is  William  Kiffin.  He  makes 
this  declaration  in  a  book  called  "A  Briefe  Re- 
monstrance of  the  Reasons  and  Grounds  of  those 
people  commonly  called  Anabaptists,  for  their 
separation,"  etc.  A  Mr.  Poole  had  addressed  to 
him  certain  Queries  for  an  answer.  The  second 
Query  was: 

"  By  what  Scripture  Warrant  doe  you  take 
upon  you  to  erect  new  framed  congregations, 
separated  to  the  disturbance  of  the  great  Worke 
of  Reformation  now  in  hand?" 

To  this  Kiffin  replied: 

"  Ans.     This  querie  hath  in  it  these  two  parts. 

I.  That  we  erect  new  framed  separate  congrega- 
tions. 2.  Wee  do  by  this  disturbe  the  great 
Worke  of  Reformation  now  in  hand." 

He  then  says: 

"To  the  first,  it  is  well  knowne  to  many,  espe- 
cially to  ourselves;  that  our  congregations  were 
erected  and  framed  according  to  the  rule  of 
Christ,  before  wee  heard  of  any  Reformation, 
even  at  that  time  when  Episcopacie  was  in  the 
height  of  its  vanishing  glory." 

He  further  states: 

"And  for  the  second  part  of  your  querie  That 
we  disturb  the  great  Worke  of  Reformation  now  in 
hand ;  I  know  not  what  you  meane  by  this  charge, 


216  DID   THEY   DIP  ? 

unless  it  be  to  discover  your  prejudice  against  us, 
in  Reforming  ourselves  before  you,  for  as  yet  we 
have  not  in  our  understanding,  neither  can  we 
conceive  anything  of  that  we  shall  see  reformed 
by  you  according  to  truth,  but  that  through 
mercie  wee  enjoy  the  practice  of  the  same  already; 
tis  strange  this  should  be  a  disturbance  to  the  in- 
genious faithful  Reformer;  it  should  bee  (one 
would  think)  a  furtherance  rather  than  a  disturb- 
ance, and  whereas  you  tell  us  of  the  work  of 
Reformation  now  in  hand,  no  reasonable  men  will 
force  us  to  desist  from  the  practice  of  that  which 
we  are  perswaded  is  according  to  Truth,  and 
waite  for  that  which  we  knowe  not  what  it  will 
be;  and  in  the  meantime  practice  that  which  you 
yourselves  say  must  be  reformed."  (Pp.  12-14. 
London,  1645). 

Here  is  a  declaration  by  one  of  the  most  intelli- 
gent Baptists  of  the  times,  whose  sources  of  in- 
formation were  of  the  best,  who  declares  inside 
of  four  years  of  1641  "that  our  congregations 
were  erected  and  framed  according  to  the  rule  of 
Christ,  before  we  heard  of  any  Reformation;" 
and  then  he  goes  on  to  defend  at  length  that  these 
congregations  possessed  the  whole  Truth.  I  do  not 
see  how  a  statement  could  be  more  conclusive. 

We  are  not  shut  up  to  this  statement.  Daniel 
King,  1650,  only  nine  years  after  1641,  wrote  a 
treatise  called  ''  A  Way  to  Zion,  Sought  Out,  and 
Found,  for  Believers  to  Walk  In."  This  startling 
proposition  in  the  first  part  is  proved, 

"  I.  That  God  hath  had  a  people  on  earth,  ever 
since  the  coming  of  Christ  in  the  flesh,  throughout 


A  CHALLENGE  ACCEPTED.  217 

the  darkest  times  of  Popery,  which  he  hath  owned 
as  Saints  and  as  his  people.'" 

The  third  part 

"  Proveth  that  Outward  Ordinances,  and 
amongst  the  rest  the  Ordinance  of  Baptism,  is  to 
contiime  in  the  Church,  and  this  Truth  cleared  up 
from  intricate  turnings  and  windings,  clouds  and 
mists  that  make  the  way  doubtful  and  dark." 

Certainly  that  would  be  a  very  arrogant  claim 
if  the  Baptists  of  England  only  began  in  1641. 
And  what  is  more,  this  book  of  King's  is  indorsed 
by  Thomas  Patient,  John  Spilsbury,  William 
Kiffin,  and  John  Pearson.  These  men  declared 
that  the  assertion  that  "  there  are  no  true  churches 
in  the  world  "  and  "  no  true  ministers  "  has  been 
of  '*  singular  use  in  hands  of  the  devil."  I  quote 
a  portion  of  their  words: 

"  The  devil  hath  mustered  up  all  his  forces  of 
late  to  blind  and  pester  the  minds  of  good  people, 
to  keep  them  from  the  clear  knowledge  and  prac- 
tice of  the  way  of  God,  either  in  possessing  peo- 
ple still  with  old  corrupt  principles;  or  if  they 
have  been  taken  of  them,  then  to  perswade  with 
them  that  there  are  no  Churches  in  the  world,  and 
that  persons  cannot  come  to  the  practice  of  Or- 
dinances, there  being  no  true  ministry  in  the 
world;  and  others  they  run  in  another  desperate 
extreme,  holding  Christ  to  be  a  shadow,  and  all 
his  Gospel  and  Ordinances  like  himself,  fleshy 
and  carnall.  This  generation  of  people  have 
been  of  singular  use  in  the  hand  of  the  Devil  to 
advance  his  kingdom,  and  to  make  war  against 
the  kingdom  of  our  Lord  Jesus.     Now  none  have 


218  DID   THEY   DIP  ? 

been  more  painfull  than  these  have  been  of  late, 
to  poison  the  City,  the  Country,  the  Army,  so  far 
as  they  could;  inasmuch  as  it  lay  upon  some  of 
our  spirits  as  a  duty  to  put  out  our  weak  ability 
for  the  discovering  of  these  grosse  errors  and  mis- 
takes; but  it  hath  pleased  God  to  stir  up  the  spirit 
of  our  Brother,  Daiiiel  Ki?ig,  whom  we  judge  a 
faithfull  and  painfull  minister  of  Jesus  Christ,  to 
take  this  work  in  hand  before  us;  and  we  judge 
he  hath  been  much  assisted  of  God  in  the  work  in 
which  he  hath  been  very  painfull.  We  shall  not 
need  to  say  much  of  the  Treatise;  only  in  brief, 
it  is  his  method  to  follow  the  Apostles'  rule,  prove 
everything  by  the  evidence  of  Scripture  light,  ex- 
pounding Scripture  by  Scripture,  and  God  hath 
helped  him  in  this  discourse,  we  judge  beyond  any 
who  hath  dealt  upon  this  subject  that  is  extant,  in 
proving  the  truth  of  Churches,  against  all  such 
that  have  gone  under  the  name  of  Seekers,  and 
hath  very  well,  and  with  great  evidence  of  Scrip- 
ture light  answered  to  all,  or  most  of  their  Objec- 
tions of  might,  as  also  those  above,  or  beyond 
Ordinances." 

Henry  D'Anvers  was  one  of  the  most  influen- 
tial and  best  informed  Baptists  of  the  seventeenth 
century.  He  was  a  distinguished  colonel  in  the 
Parliamentary  army  and  Governor  of  Stafford. 
He  wrote  the  most  powerful  book  of  the  century 
on  baptism.  He  makes  the  most  positive  claims 
of  the  long  continuance  of  Baptists  in  England, 
and  that  the  Baptists  had  continued  in  "  the  good 
old  way."     I  quote  two  paragraphs: 

"  In  the  sixteenth  year  of  King  James,  i6i8^ 


A   CHALLENGE   ACCEPTED.  219^ 

that  excellent  Dutch  piece,  called  A  very  plain  and 
well-growided  Treatise  concerning    Baptism,   that 
with  so  much  authority  both   from  Scripture  and 
Antiquity,  proves  the  baptizing  of  Believers  and 
disproves  that  of  Infants,  was  printed  in  E?iglish. 
••  Since  when  (especially  in  the  last  thirty  or 
forty  years)  many  have  been  the  conferences  that 
have  past,  and  many  the  Treatises  that  have  been 
written  pro   and  con  upon  the  subject,  and  many 
have  been  the  sufferings  both  in  old   and  new 
England,   that    people    of   that    perswasion   have 
undergone,  whereby  such  light  hath  broken  forth 
therein  that  not  only    very   many   learned    men 
have  been  convinced  thereof,  but  very  many  con- 
gregations of  Baptists  have  been,  and  are  daily 
gathered  in  that  good  old  way  of  the   Lord  that 
hath    so  long   lain  under  so  much   obloquy  and 
reproach,  and  been  buried  under  so  much  Anti- 
christian  rubbish  in  these  nations."     (A  Treatise 
on  Baptism,  p.  308.      London,  1674). 

Thomas  Grantham  was  one  of  the  greatest 
Baptist  writers  of  the  seventeenth  century. 
Under  date  of  1678  he  wrote: 

"  That  many  of  the  learned  have  much  abused 
this  age,  in  telling  them  that  the  Anabaptists  (i.  e. 
the  Baptized  Churches)  are  of  a  late  edition,  a 
-  new  sect,  etc.,  when  from  their  own  writings  the 
clean  contrary  is  so  evident."  (Christianismus 
Primitivus,  pp.  92,  93.    London,   1678). 

I  shall  give  the  words  of  a  Baptist,  who  closed 
the  century  with  a  book  on  baptism.  He  speaks 
with  no  uncertain  sound.  Joseph  Hooke  had  read 
largely  on  the  subject,  and  his  book  shows  that 


220  DID   THEY    DIP  ? 

he  was  scholarly.  He  claims  a  succession  from 
the  days  of  the  apostles.     Mr.  Hooke  says: 

"Thus  having  shewed  negatively,  when  this 
sect  called  Ana-Baptists  did  not  begin:  we  shall 
shew  in  the  next  place  affirmatively,  when  it  did 
begin;  for  a  beginning  it  had,  and  it  concerns 
us  to  enquire  for  the  Fountain  Head  of  this  Sect; 
for  if  I  was  sure  that  it  were  no  older  than  the 
Mujister- Fight  that  Mr.  Erratt  puts  in  mind 
of,  I  would  Resolve  to  forsake  it,  and  would 
persuade  others  to  do  so  too. 

"  That  religion  that  is  7iot  as  old  as  Christ  and 
his  apostles^  is  too  new  for  7ne. 

"  But  secondly,  affirmatively,  we  are  fully  per- 
swaded,  and  therefore  do  boldly,  tho'  humbly, 
assert,  that  this  Sect  is  the  very  same  sort  of  People 
that  were  first  called  Christians  mAntioch,  Acts  1 1 ,  26. 
But  sometimes  called  Nazare?ies,  Acts  24,  5.  And 
as  they  are  every  where  spoken  against  now,  even 
so  they  were  in  the  Primitive  Times.  Acts  28,  22." 
(A  Necessary  Apology  for  the  Baptists,  Lon- 
don, 1701,  p.  19). 


ROGER   WILLIAMS.  221 


CHAPTER  XII. 

ROGER    WILLIAMS. 

I  have  read,  and  re-read,  Dr.  Whitsitt's  chapter 
upon  "  The  Baptism  of  Roger  Williams  "  with  in- 
creasing surprise.  He  argues  at  great  length  in 
favor  of  sprinkling  and  then  ends  the  chapter 
with  this  remarkable  concession: 

In  the  present  state  of  information  it  would  be  unwise  to 
pronounce  with  certainty  any  conclusion  regarding  this 
question.  However,  within  the  limits  of  the  uncertainty 
which  is  freely  acknowledged,  the  weight  of  evidence  ap- 
pears to  incline  very  clearly  towards  the  viev/  that  Roger 
Williams  was  sprinkled  and  not  immersed  at  Providence 
in  1639.     (P.  164). 

Dr.  Whitsitt  nowhere  intimates  that  there  is  an 
author  who  states  that  Williams  was  sprinkled. 
His  argument  rests  wholly  upon  inferences  and 
those  inferences  are  not  well  grounded.  His  in- 
ferences are:  I.  That  the  Baptists  of  England 
were  in  the  practice  of  sprinkling,  and  therefore 
Roger  Williams  was  sprinkled.     His  words  are: 

Is  {here  a.ny  a  priori  reason  for  supposing  that  he  was 
in  advance  of  them  in  this  regard?  It  has  been  suggested 
that  he  was  a  person  of  unusual  independence  of  mind,  but 
has  any  proof  ever  been  given  to  show  that  his  independ- 
ence was  employed  in  this  particular  direction?  (P.  150). 
We  demand  proof  for  the  very  thing  he  takes 
for  granted.  I  have  already  sfiown  that  this  in- 
ference is  false,  and  that  the  Baptists  of  England 
were  not  in  the  practice  of  sprinkling.  And  2. 
Williams  was  not  dominated  by  the  English  Bap- 
tists.  Williams  was  an  independent  man,  and  ap- 
pears to  have  been  controlled  by  his  own  impres- 
sions of  the  teachings  of  the  New  Testament. 


222  DID   THEY   DIP  ? 

Dr.  Whitsitt  has  declared  that  it  was  "  proba- 
ble "  that  Williams  was  sprinkled.  All  the  world 
has  believed,  and  still  believes,  that  he  was  im- 
mersed. The  burden  of  proof  rests  upon  Dr.  Whit- 
sitt. He  must  present  proof  to  establish  his  po- 
sition. This  he  has  utterly  failed  to  do.  All  that 
he  has  attempted  is  to  explain  away  the  force  of 
certain  authors,  and  to  quibble  over  the  meaning 
of  the  word  wash.  Then  he  admits  that  he  does 
''  no^.  positively  settle  the  question  regarding  the 
act  employed."     (P.  i^i). 

I  invite  attention  to  some  of  the  evidence  in 
favor  of  immersion.  Every  contemporary  who 
mentions  his  baptism,  Williams  himself  included, 
and  all  the  later  writers,  declare  that  the  act  was 
an  immersion. 

I  shall  first  give  some  side  lights  on  the  sub- 
ject. Dr.  Whitsitt  dismisses  the  fact  of  Mr. 
Chauncy  practicing  immersion  with  this   remark: 

But  nobody  has  shown  that  Mr.  Williams  regarded  the 
view  of  Chauncey  with  any  sort  of  favor  at  the  time  when  it 
was  advanced.  For  aught  we  know  to  the  contrary  he  may 
have  felt  a  prejudice  both  against  the  man  and  his  conten- 
tion.   (P.  149). 

But  Mr.  Chauncy  cannot  be  dismissed  so 
lightly.  There  is  a  clear  connection  between  the 
immersions  of  Mr.  Chauncy  and  the  Providence 
men.  I  shall  give  the  explicit  testimony  of  Gov- 
ernor Bradford,  then  governor  of  Plymouth 
Colony.  He  shows  not  only  that  Chauncy  was 
an  immersionist  but  that  the  whole  of  New  Eng- 
land was  agitated  on  the  subject  of  immersion. 
He  says: 

I  had  forgotten  to  inserte  in  its  place  how  ye  church 
here  had  invited  and  sent  for  Mr.  Charles  Chansey,  a  rev- 


ROGER   WILLIAMS.  223 

erend,  godly  and  very  larned  man,  intending  upon  triall  to 
chose  him  pastor  of  ye  church  hear,  for  ye  more  comfort- 
able performance  of  ye  ministrie  with  Mr.  John  Reinor,  the 
teacher  of  ye  same.  But  ther  fell  out  some  difference  aboute 
baptising,  he  holding  that  it  ought  only  to  be  by  dipping, 
and  putting  ye  whole  body  under  water,  and  that  sprink- 
ling was  unlawfull.  The  church  yeelded  that  immersion, 
or  dipping,  was  lawfull,  but  in  this  could  countrie  not  so 
conveniente.  But  they  could  not  nor  durst  not  yeeld  to  him 
in  this,  that  sprinkling  (which  all  ye  churches  of  Christ  doe 
for  ye  most  parte  at  this  day)  was  unlawfull  &  an  humane 
invention,  as  ye  same  was  prest;  but  they  were  willing  to 
yeeld  to  him  as  far  as  yey  could,  &  to  ye  utmost;  and  were 
contented  to  suffer  him  to  practise  as  he  was  perswaded; 
and  when  he  came  to  minister  that  ordnance  he  might  so 
doe  it  to  any  yt  did  desire  it  in  yt  way,  provided  he  could 
peacably  suffer  Mr.  Reinor,  and  such  as  desired  to  have 
theirs  otherwise  baptized  by  him,  by  sprinkling  or  power- 
ing on  of  water  upon  them;  so  as  ther  might  be  no  disturb- 
ance in  ye  church  hereaboute.  But  he  said  he  could  not 
yeeld  hereunto.  Upon  which  the  church  procured  some 
other  ministers  to  dispute  ye  pointe  with  him  publikly;  as 
Mr.  Ralfe  Patrick,  of  Duxberie,  allso  some  other  ministers 
within  this  governmente.  But  he  was  not  satisfied;  so  ye 
church  sent  to  many  other  churches  to  crave  their  help  and 
advise  in  this  m.atter,  and,  with  his  will  &  consente,  sent 
them  his  arguments  written  under  his  owne  hand.  They 
sente  them  to  ye  church  at  Boston  in  ye  Bay  of  Massachu- 
setts, to  be  communicated  with  other  churches  ther.  Also 
they  sent  the  same  to  ye  churches  of  Conightecutt  and 
New-Haven,  with  sundrie  others;  and  received  very  able  & 
sufficient  answers,  as  they  conceived,  from  them  and  their 
larned  ministers,  who  all  concluded  against  him.  But  him 
selfe  was  not  satisfied  thervvth.  Their  answers  are  too 
large  hear  to  relate.  They  conceived  ye  church  had  done 
what  was  meete  in  ye  things,  so  Mr.  Chansey  having  been 
ye  most  parte  of  3  years  here,  removed  himself  to  Sityate, 
wher  he  now  remaines  a  minister  to  ye  church  ther.  (Of 
Plimoth  Plantation  by  William  Bradford,  pp.  382,  384). 

These  extracts  show  that  the  whole  of  New 
England  was  agitated  on  the  subject  of  immersion 
before  the  baptism  of  Roger  Williams.  The 
churches  took  action  on  the  matter.  We  learn 
from  Keyne's  MS.  that  the  Boston  Church  re- 
turned answer  to  the  Plymouth  Church,  June  21, 
to  "  whether  it  be  lawful  to  use  sprinkling  in  bap- 


224  •     DID   THEY   DIP  ? 

tism,  or  rather  dipping;  Mr.  Chauncy  being  of  the 

mind,  that  it  is  a  violation  of  an  ordinance  to  use 

sprinkling  instead  of  dipping."     (  Bradford's  Hist. 

N.  E.,  Vol.  I.,  p.  331,  note).     But   as    much   as 

Chauncy  was  admired  at  Plymouth  the  church  did 

not  employ  him,  on  account  of  his  views  on  the 

subject  of  immersion.    This  is  set  forth  by  Hooker 

in  a  letter  to  his  son-in-law.  Shepherd,  November 

2,  1640.     He  says: 

I  have  of  late  had  intelligence  from  Plymouth.  Mr. 
Chauncy  and  the  church  are  to  part,  he  to  provide  for  him- 
self, and  they  for  themselves.  At  the  day  of  fast,  when  a 
full  conclusion  of  the  business  should  have  been  made,  he 
openly  professed  he  did  as  verily  believe  the  truth  of  his 
opinion  as  that  there  was  a  God  in  heaven,  and  that  he  was 
as  settled  in  it  as  that  the  earth  was  upon  the  center.  If 
ever  such  confidence  find  success  I  miss  my  mark.  Mr. 
Humphrey,  I  hear,  invites  him  to  Providence,  and  the  coast 
is  most  meet  for  his  opinions  and  practice.  (Felt's  Eccl. 
Hist.,  Vol.  I.,  p.  448). 

It  will  be  seen  from  this  letter  of  Hooker  that 
Mr.  Chauncy  was  invited  on  his  leaving  Plym- 
outh to  go  to  Providence,  for  **  that  coast  is  most 
meet  for  his  opinions  and  practice."  That  is  to 
say,  they  believed  in  immersion  at  Providence.  It 
cannot  mean  anything  else,  for  Chauncy  still 
held  to  infant  baptism.  This  is  perfectly  plain, 
for  Felt  says  of  Chauncy,  July  7,  1642: 

Chauncy  at  Scituate  still  adheres  to  his  practice  of  im- 
mersion. He  had  baptized  two  of  his  own  children  in  this 
way.  A  woman  of  his  congregation  who  had  a  child  of 
three  years  old,  and  wished  it  to  receive  such  an  ordinance, 
was  fearful  that  it  might  be  too  much  frightened  by  being 
dipped  as  some  had  been.  She  desired  a  letter  from  him, 
recommending  her  to  the  Boston  Church,  so  that  she  might 
have  the  child  sprinkled.  He  complied  and  the  rite  was 
accordingly  administered.  (Felt's  Eccl.  Hist.,  Vol.  I.,  p. 
497). 

So  there  is  no  difference  between  Chauncy  and 

the  Providence  men  on  the  act  of  baptism. 


ROGER   WILLIAMS.  225 

This  will  also  turn  light  on  the  banishment  of 
Roger  Williams  in  1633  from  Plymouth.  He  held 
Anabaptist  opinions,  which  meant  that  he  re- 
jected infant  baptism  and  believed  in  immersion. 
The  more  you  look  into  this  the  more  probable  it 
becomes.  I  can  only  briefly  present  the  facts. 
In  1633  he  was  "already  inclined  to  the  opinions 
of  the  Anabaptists."  (Pablications  of  the  Narra- 
gansett  Club,  Vol.  I.,  p.  14).  For  on  requesting 
his  dismissal  back  to  Salem  in  the  autumn  of 
1633,  we  find  the  elder,  Mr.  Brewster,  persuading 
the  Plymouth  Church  to  relinquish  communion 
with  him,  lest  he  should  "  run  the  same  course  of 
rigid  Separation  and  Anabaptistery  which  Mr. 
John  Smith,  the  Se-Baptist  of  Amstersdam  had 
done."     (Pub.  Nar.  Club,  Vol.  I.,  p.  17). 

Wm.  Gammel,  after  stating  that  Williams  was 
immersed,  says  very  truthfully: 

The  very  mention  of  the  name  of  Anabaptism  called  up 
a  train  of  phantoms,  that  never  failed  to  excite  the  appre- 
hensions of  the  early  Puritans.  Hence  it  was  when  Mr. 
Brewster  suggested  even  the  remotest  association  of  Roger 
Wilhams  with  this  heresy,  the  church  at  Plymouth  were 
easily  induced  to  grant  his  dismission  which  "he  requested. 
A  considerable  number  of  its  members,  however,  who  had 
become  attached  to  his  ministry,  were  also  dismissed  at  the 
same  time  and  removed  with  him  to  Salem.  (Gammel's 
Life  of  Roger  Williams,  p.  27). 

Thus  we  are  duly  prepared  for  the  statement  of 

Governor  Winthrop,  March  16,  1639: 

At  Providence  things  grew  worse;  for  a  sister  of  Mrs. 
Hutchinson,  the  wife  of  one  Scott,  being  infected  with  Ana- 
baptistery,  and  going  last  year  to  live  at  Providence,  Mr. 
WilliamiS  was  taken  (or  rather  emboldened)  by  her  to  make 
open  profession  thereof,  and  accordingly  was  rebaptized  by 
one  Holliman,  a  poor  man  late  of  Salem.  Then  Mr.  Will- 
iams rebaptized  hmi  and  some  ten  more.  They  also 
denied  the  baptizing  of  infants,  and  would  have  no  magis- 
trates.   (Winthrop's  Hist.  N.  E.,  Vol.  I.,  p.  293). 


226  DID   THEY   DIP  ? 

Putting  all  of  these  facts  and  side  lights  together, 
it  would  prove  that  the  Providence  men  practiced 
immersion  and  that  Roger  Williams  was  im- 
mersed. 

We  are  not  shut  up  to  side  lights  but  we  have 
positive  testimony.  We  have  just  given  the  state- 
ment of  Governor  Winthrop. 

The  argument  of  Dr.  Guild,  the  learned  Libra- 
rian of  Brown  University,  upon  this  statement  of 
Winthrop's  is  conclusive.     He  says: 

"  Perhaps  Prof.  Whitsitt  makes  the  point  that 
re-baptism  was  not  immersion.  It  has  always 
been  so  regarded  in  these  parts  from  the  begin- 
ning. Williams  himself  has  placed  himself  on 
record  as  a  believer  in  dipping."  This  argument 
cannot  be  overturned  by  mere  suppositions,  and 
nothing  has  yet  been  offered  to  upset  it. 

Coddington,  who  appears  to  have  been  an  eye 
witness,  is  conclusive.  Coddington  was  governor 
of  Rhode  Island  and  had  an  opportunity  to  know 
what  he  was  stating.     He  says: 

"I  have  known  him  about  fifty  years;  a  mere 
weather  cock,  constant  only  in  inconsistency. 
*  *  *  One  time  for  water  baptism,  men  and 
women  must  be  plunged  into  the  water,  and  then 
threw  it  all  down  again."    (Letter  to  Scott,  1677). 

Prof.  A.  H.  Newman,  D.  D.,  LL.  D.,  says  of 
Coddington's  testimony: 

"  It  seems  highly  probable  that  Roger  Williams 
was  immersed,  though  I  once  was  of  the  contrary 
opinion;  Coddington,  who  seems  to  have  wit- 
nessed the  ceremony,  described  it  some  time 
afterward  as  immersion." 


ROGER   WILLIAMS.  227 

Prof.  Vedder  after  giving  the  testimony  of 
Williams  and  Coddington  remarks: 

"  I  quite  agree  with  my  friend,  Dr.  Newman, 
that  this  cannot  be  explained  as  other  than  a 
reference  to  the  baptism  of  Williams  and  others 
by  Ezekiel  HoUiman,  nor  do  I  see  how  Codding- 
ton's  knowledge  of  the  facts  can  be  successfully 
questioned.  Taken  in  connection  with  the 
negative  testimony  of  silence  —  that  we  have,  in 
all  the  contemporary  literature,  not  the  slightest 
hint  of  any  change  of  method  among  American 
Baptists  —  this  seems  to  me  virtually  to  settle  the 
question  in  favor  of  immersion  in  the  case  of 
Roger  Williams.  While  I  would  not  affirm  posi- 
tively that  he  was  immersed,  I  feel  that  the 
balance  of  probability  is  decidedly  on  that  side. 
In  fine,  anybody  who  asserts  that  anything  but 
immersion  has  been  practiced  from  the  beginning 
among  American  Baptists  assumes  the  burden  of 
proof;  and  ingeiiious  guesses  about  Mark  Lukar  and 
things  of  that  sort  are  not  proofs.  They  may  satisfy 
the  guesser,  but  he  cannot  fairly  ask  that  a?iybody  else 
shotdd  be  satisfied  with  them!'  {The  Examiner, 
May  21,  1896). 

Richard  Scott,  who  appears  to  have  been  an 
eye  witness  of  this  baptism,  for  a  time  a  Baptist 
himself,  and  afterwards  a  Quaker,  writing  against 
Williams  thirty-eight  years  afterwards,  says: 

*•  I  walked  with  him  in  the  Baptists'  way  about 
three  or  four  months  *  *  *  in  which  time  he 
broke  from  his  society  and  declared  at  large  the 
ground  and  reason  for  it;  that  their  baptism 
could  not  be  right  because  it  was  not  administered 


228  DID   THEY   DIP  ? 

by  an  apostle.  After  that  he  set  upon  a  way  of 
seeking,  with  two  or  three  of  them  that  had  dis- 
sented with  him,  by  way  of  preaching  and  pray- 
ing; and  then  he  continued  a  year  or  two  till  two 
of  them  left  him.  *  *  *  After  his  society  and 
he  in  a  church  way  had  parted  he  went  to  Eng- 
land."    (Appendix  to  Fox's  Firebrand  Quenched, 

p.  247). 

Scott  makes  no  mention  of  a  change  of  opinion 
of  the  Baptists  on  the  subject  of  dipping,  for  it  is 
very  certain  that  the  Baptists  at  the  time  Scott 
wrote  this  practiced  dipping. 

Williams'  own  opinion  on  the  subject  of  bap- 
tism was  always  singularly  clear.  He  declares 
that  it  is  immersion.  In  a  tract  which  was  sup- 
posed for  a  long  time  to  be  lost,  but  which  is  now 
in  the  British  Museum,  called  "  Christenings  Make 
not  Christians,"  1645,  l"*^  says: 

"  Thirdly,  for  our  New-England  parts,  I  can 
speake  uprightly  and  confidently,  1  know  it  to 
have  been  easie  for  my  selfe,  long  ere  this,  to 
have  brought  many  thousands  of  these  Nations, 
yea  the  whole  country,  to  a  far  greater  Antichris- 
tian  conversion  then  was  ever  yet  heard  of  in 
America.  I  have  reported  something  in  their 
Chapter  of  their  Religion,  how  readily  I  could 
have  brought  the  whole  Country  to  have  observed 
one  day  in  seven;  I  adde  to  have  received  a  Bap- 
tisme  (or  washing)  though  it  were  in  Rivers  (as 
the  first  Christians  and  the  Lord  lesus  himself 
did)  to  have  come  to  2^  stated  Church  7neeting,  &c." 

(P.  II). 

In  a  letter  which  we  find  among  the  Winthrop 


ROGER   WILLIAMS.  229 

papers,  dated  Narragansett,  9,  10,  1649,  Williams 
says: 

**  At  Seekonk  a  great  many  have  lately  con- 
curred with  Mr.  John  Clarke  and  our  Providence 
men  about  the  point  of  a  new  baptisme,  and  the 
manner  by  dipping,  and  Mr.  John  Clarke  hath 
been  there  lately,  and  Mr.  Lucar,  and  hath  dipped 
them.  I  believe  their  practice  comes  nearer  the 
first  practice  of  our  great  founder  Christ  Jesus 
than  any  other  practices  of  religion  do."  (Mas- 
sachusetts Historical  Collections,  Fourth  Series, 
Vol.  VI.,  p.  274). 

There  is  absolutely  no  proof  that  Williams 
thought  anything  but  immersion  was  baptism. 

All  writers  and  authorities,  till  recently,  have 
taken  the  ground  that  Williams  was  immersed.  I 
shall  add  a  few  of  these  witnesses. 

John  Callender,  1 706-1 738,  says: 

"But  to  take  things  in  their  order,  Mr.  R.Will- 
iams is  said,  in  a  few  years  after  his  sitting  in 
Providence,  to  have  embraced  the  opinions  of  the 
people  called  (by  way  of  reproach)  Anabaptists 
in  respect  to  the  subject  and  mode  of  baptism; 
and  to  have  formed  a  church  there,  in  that  way, 
with  the  help  of  one  Ezekiel  Holliman."  (Histor- 
ical Discourse  on  Rhode  Island,  pp.  109,  no). 

Felt  says: 

"  Williams  as  stated  by  Winthrop,  was  lately 
immersed."     (Eccl.  Hist.,  Vol.  I.,  p.  402). 

Dr.  A.  H.  Newman  says: 

"  Contemporary  testimony  is  unanimous  in 
favor  of  the  view  that  immersion  was  practiced 
by  Williams.     As  this  fact  is  generally  conceded 


230  DID   THEY   DIP  ? 

it  does  not   seem  worth   while  to  quote  the  evi- 
dence." 

Dr.  George  P.  Fisher,  Professor  of  Church  His- 
tory, Yale  University,  says: 

"  Roger  Williams  was  baptized  by  immersion." 
(History  of  the  Christian  Church,  p.  472). 

Bishop  John  F.  Hurst,  Methodist,  says: 

*' Williams  was  immersed."  (Short  History  of 
Christian  Church,  p.  516). 

The  Watchman,  Boston,  May  14,  1896,  says: 

"  When  he  afKirms  that  the  re-baptism  of  Roger 
Williams  was  by  sprinkling,  he  states  what  has 
not  been  proved  by  historical  evidence,  and  the 
presumptions  are  altogether  against  such  a  state- 
ment." 

Dr.  Newman  says  of  Dr.  Dexter: 

'•  Knowing  that  Dr.  Dexter  was  master  of  the 
literature  pertaining  to  Roger  Williams,  and  sup- 
posing that  his  inclination  would  be  wholly  in 
favor  of  the  non-immersion  view,  I  sought  his 
opinion  on  the  question.  His  answer  was  entirely 
in  accord  with  my  own  conclusion.  He  expressed 
the  opinion  that,  in  the  absence  of  contemporary 
evidence  against  immersion,  Coddington's  state- 
ment must  be  accepted  as  probably  correct.  In 
matters  of  this  kind  an  ounce  of  fact  is  worth  a 
ton  of  conjecture."  {^The  Exami?ier,  May  21, 
1896). 

Schaff  says: 

"In  1638  he  became  a  Baptist;  he  was  im- 
mersed by  Ezekiel  HoUiman  and  in  turn  im- 
mersed HoUiman  and  ten  others."  (Creeds  of 
Christendom,  Vol.  I.,  p.  851). 


ROGER  WILLIAMS.  231 

Against  the  inferences  of  Dr.  Whitsitt  that  Will- 
iams was  sprinkled,  I  put  the  solid  facts  that 
he  was  immersed.  "An  ounce  of  fact  is  worth  a 
ton  of  conjecture."  Thus  goes  to  pieces  the  last 
proof  of  Dr.  Whitsitt's  theory. 


DATE  DUE                         1 

n^^Ttiftk 

T.-ijfca 

'"  ■'  1 

\m 

"C  C  ^'^  '-^ 

a 

.DEC  0 

8  mj 

CAYLORD 

